Image Hosted by ImageShack.usImage Hosted by         Right Thinking

                                                                           Conservative Thought and Commentary

HEADLINES:      September 6 - Huge Step Taken by Europe‚Äôs Bank to Abate a Crisis       September 6 - U.S. policy on China sees little progress       September 6 - State Department drops Maoists from terrorist watch list       September 6 - Venezuela Holds U.S. Vessel And Crew On Suspicion Of Arms Trafficking       September 5 - DNC Overrules Delegates, Rams God and Jerusalem Back into Platform       September 5 - Powerful quake hits Costa Rica      

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

A Beautiful Baby Girl

Amillia Sonja Taylor was only 9 1/2 inches long and weighed less than 10 ounces when she was born October 24, 2007, just 21 weeks and six days after conception.

Now between 25 and 26 inches long and weighing 4 1/2 pounds, Amillia is set to be released soon from the hospital.

One of the arguments I've heard over the years from the pro-abortion crowd is that a fetus is not a baby until it can live outside the womb. My response has always been that if that is true, then the only thing that determines when the fetus becomes a baby is the advance of medical technology. As the first baby known to survive after being born at less than 23 weeks gestation, little Amillia proves once again that as medical technology advances, a baby can live outside the womb at an ever-increasingly early age. Does that mean that fetuses are becoming babies at an earlier age, or is it possible that they have always been babies and that the abortion industry has simply chosen to deny that fact? Is it also possible that fetuses much younger than 21 weeks and six days are already babies?

One more note: When I look at the picture above, I don't see just a blob of tissue or just a part of the mother's body for her to do with what she chooses. I see a pair of remarkably small human feet.

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Al Gore: "Never before has all of civilization been threatened."

How does anyone take Al Gore seriously?

We live in a world with an abundance of unsecured nuclear materials. We live in a world where madmen like North Korea's Kim Jong Il possess nuclear weapons, and fanatics like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seek such weapons. We live in a world where radical islamic jihadists openly seek to destroy the western world.

All of this, yet when Al Gore makes the above statement, to what is he referring?

You guessed it: Global Warming.

Just a thought: If somehow we were given the choice of immediately eliminating all nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons' technology from the earth, or of immediately eliminating all greenhouse gases from the earth, which would make you feel safer?

I can't imagine that anyone feels more threatened by global warming than by the threat of nuclear weapons, but maybe I'm wrong.

The Conservative Sites Webring by lazarst
[ Join Now | Ring Hub | Random | << Prev | Next >> ]