Missouri law gets the science right

As noted in Media Deeply Concerned About Missouri Abortion Law, Not So Much About Sharia, Missouri gets the science right in a new law about informed consent for abortions.

The media tried to twist it into a debatable religious angle, even though the law just adds a simple, factual phrase to a pamphlet:

“The life of each human being begins at conception,” according to Senate Bill 793, which will add new regulations to the state’s 24-hour informed consent law for abortions. “Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.”

Those words will be displayed “prominently” on brochures that abortion providers will be required to hand out to every woman seeking the procedure — even if they don’t happen to believe the Christian theology the words represent.

Of course all Christians should know that God created life and that we should protect innocent human beings from being aborted.

But this law isn’t based on religion, it is based on an irrefutable scientific fact: The unborn are unique, living human beings from conception.  Go check out those pesky embryology textbooks in the link.  Or just think about the logic for about 5 seconds: What other type of being would two human beings create?   Of course it is a human being.  Who cares if / when it has a soul?  If you think the timing of the soul is important then you need to prove exactly when it comes into being or explain why we wouldn’t err on the side of caution.

The article also highlights how ridiculous it is to protest the requirement to share scientific facts with women about to have their unborn children destroyed while turning a blind eye to the creeping Sharia law of Islam.  What does Sharia declare?

  • Women are inferior to men.
  • Women should have fewer rights and responsibilities than Larry the Cable Guy.
  • Women count for one-half of a dude in giving evidence in a court of law.
  • Women should be horse whipped if they ever make their husband feel like a dork.
  • Victoria’s Secret Miraculous Bra (with extreme level 5 cleavage) makes God angry.
  • Women can’t say squat in regard to whom they’ll marry, what they’ll wear, where they’ll live, or whether or not they can divorce their cheating and/or abusive husband.
  • Girls can be wed beginning at the ripe old age of frickin’ nine.
  • Women should be cool with hubby having a couple of hoochies or female slaves on the side.
  • Women, on the pretext of “honor,” should be locked up, isolated and unable to have a girls’ night out at Mango’s on Ocean Drive.
  • Say, where are all the feminists yelling about “my body, my life” when it comes to Islam?

0 thoughts on “Missouri law gets the science right”

  1. Is that really so controversial? (The question isn’t to you, but to those who say, “What??!!”) Way back in 2003 Congress passed the Laci and Conner’s Law which said that killing a child in utero was murder. How they managed to tap dance around “unless, of course, it was intentional” is beyond me.



  2. “Say, where are all the feminists yelling about “my body, my life” when it comes to Islam?”

    Off pretending to be courageous in the faces of those who would not hack off their heads for daring to even speak out. That’s where.

    I would imagine their excuse would be that their concern is only about American law. But as some whine about religious freedom when the more violent aspects of quranic teaching is exposed, there is a push to further Sharia in this country as in all the world. It is what Islam does. We Christians evangelize and hope to bring as many to Christ as possible, but the quran teaches something a bit more, uh, overbearing.

    As to the Mizzoo law, I applaud it for it’s scientific soundness as well as for the fact that it simply states fact and truth. I know that sounds redundant, but what passes for scientific soundness to some is not always factual or truthful. (See AGW—See Homosexuality)

    On the third note, I’ve been in discussions with a leftist regarding the media and its own leftist slant. I may use this article to give more credence to my position.

    One last thing: so what if the words DID represent Christian theology? If the theology is logical, beneficial to more people than any alternatives, and if it aligns with science, as this issue so nicely does, then why should such representation be an issue?


  3. Dumb question from the engineer: why are those theological words? It says life, not soul (which is a biological term – bios = life, people!); separate, unique, etc., which are just common descriptors (and are totally accurate).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s