HOW WOULD A BLOBLING VOTE?

If we use our imagination and our common sense, we can find the answer to the question of how a blobling would vote in the coming election. Every person who has ever lived was once a blobling. The Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions of 1973 destined millions of these preborn lives to death by abortion, it continues at the rate of about 3500 abortions a day. If we envision ourselves back in our earliest stage of life, knowing that about 30% of all bloblings never make it out of the womb alive, how would we vote?

Preborn life was once respected and accepted as equal to all life. A pregnancy was usually a time of joyous expectations; the blobling, even one that was an undesired surprise, would be welcomed, revered, and protected. But, now a pregnant woman has the legal right to choose (decide) a quick and dreadful death for the preborn life she carries in her womb.

We cannot ignore the core questions that challenge our behavior. Is there a moral aspect to a woman’s right to choose death for a person, other than herself? Does the choice to destroy life contradict the nature of the reproductive process? Do we ignore common sense when a death is permitted by means of a choice? How does a woman who becomes pregnant suddenly gain the supreme power, and moral right to decide if a child will live, or a blobling will die? And if her choice is abortion, but during the abortion process the a baby survives, as some have, then by what power does the essence of this preborn life, with no rights, shift to the essence of a baby person, with all rights? And finally, how can we sentence an innocent person to a capital punishment, as though he or she had been proved guilty of a capital crime, beyond the shadow of doubt, in a court of law?

The difficulty of exploring these critically relevant questions is that we all have a tendency to ignore objective truth when it appears to be contrary to what we have been persuaded to believe. Historically, the growing preborn blobling, in his or her earliest stage of life, has always been accepted as an equal member of the human family, and as such, is entitled to all the rights promised by our Forefathers in the Declaration of Independence. If a blobling could vote, we know that he or she would vote for a pro-life candidate.

TRUTH TO GOODNESS

Our nation’s division over abortion continues to grow; it has fractured our democracy. The only cure is a determined search for the truth. We must insist on the use of honest language that follows the rules of logical reasoning. The purpose of an honest language is to transfer objective truth from one mind to another. We believe that searching for truth under these ground rules will be fair and balanced and will ultimately lead all of us to a comprehensible and irrefutable conclusion.

We are also determined to eradicate from our abortion dialogues the refrain used repeatedly by abortion advocates to divert or discount the credibility of any argument that is based on a person’s belief in God. On hearing a religious argument, this group will say “don’t impose your religion on us” or “you’re against abortion because of your religion.” For this reason we have chosen to restrict our dialogue to the position held by the agnostic (which we are not), because we believe that anyone who has faith in God must logically accept that God, through nature, is the author of all life, and no man or woman who believes that God is truly the creator of every human life could possibly rationalize to the position of usurping that power except to save one’s own life from a direct malevolent, life-threatening attack. Therefore, we must assume that all “believers” are clearly pro-life.

So, we welcome all non-religious dialogue because we believe it will more clearly expose the illogical activism that brought our nation down to the base inhumanity of abortion up to birth itself, for which we are now paying a devastating price. When we finally expose and put an end to this repugnant, anti-intellectual killing of our own species, we will regain our nation’s soul and the moral integrity that made our nation known for its greatness, and its goodness.

THE DEBATE

We chose the name bloblings to force the debate down to the entity that is the most difficult to defend. It’s the phase of life that has been the most mysterious and least known. We believe we can defend the fact that the blobling in the womb is a person with all rights. And we challenge the abortion industry to prove that they do not lend support to the destruction of innocent human life. The burden of proof falls on those of us who condone and defend abortion! Therefore, until such proof can be demonstrated, it’s our moral duty to protect the lives of even the earliest preborn persons, the bloblings!

So, we ask: Why have we, the citizens of America, allowed ourselves to be persuaded that we have the right to kill a preborn human life even though we have not, and cannot, demonstrate—scientifically, philosophically or medically—beyond a reasonable doubt, that the preborn life is not a fully human person?

Along with seemingly irrefutable logic, we agree with the legal scholars who find Roe v. Wade and its companion decision, Doe v. Bolton to be unwarranted judicial activism that has turned the Constitution on its head. It has not only given us abortion on demand, but even abortion at birth, which has created a pervasive disrespect for human life, and has caused us to endure the shameful era of dump bin babies—the treating of human life as trash! What a reflection on American morality, and what depraved, inhumane injustice we have visited on the most innocent member of our human family.

PERSONHOOD

The personhood of a blobling has not yet been clearly established in the minds of most people; historically, human growth and development in the womb has been hidden from sight. This hidden phenomenon of nature has made the womb-phase vulnerable to falsification; for the last three to four decades it has been obfuscated by a long list of contrived utterances, false imagery, and slanted distortions. But now the false claims of the abortion industry and their advocates have been irrefutably exposed by science. The womb-phase is now an open picture show. Thanks to 3-D and 4-D fetal ultrasound, our eyes can see the unique drama of nature’s miracle in the womb. The fetus has been seen to yawn, cry, swallow, blink and execute intricate moves. Personhood is undeniable! Fetal ultrasound is the achievement of the century because it supports what we have always known to be true. We can no longer deny reality. Ultrasound makes life in the womb clearly visible to the world of science, to legal scholars, and most importantly, to parents. What we see through science confirms the truth previously derived through common sense—a blobling (zygote, embryo, fetus, baby) stands on its own right, its own dignity, character, essence, and is equal in value to the freely born.

ROE V. WADE & DOE V. BOLTON

It began in 1973, the Supreme Court handed down two major decisions, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion with restrictions unless the life or health of the mother was at stake. Doe v. Bolton defined health so broadly (all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient) it made abortion legal for any reason, and at any time, from the single-cell zygote up to and including the fully formed partial-birth abortion. These two decisions, together, were the death sentence for preborn American citizens. The full brutality of abortion-on-demand is exposed when we understand that Doe stripped Roe of its restrictions. Sadly, some pro-life leaders are still not alert to the need to conceptually bind Doe to Roe. Yet, abortion advocates see the benefit of keeping Doe out of the debate; they know that it will divulge the full force and effect of Roe and Doe together.

The Supreme Court went even further in its defiance of common sense when it said, “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” This evasion of reality made it easier for society to swallow the abortion horror. A woman could now have someone destroy the zygote/embryo/fetus growing in her womb. This abhorrent devastation of innocent human life was so outrageous and so alarming that by 1978, I was spending my free time as a pro-life activist writer. My goal was to defend the weakest member of our human family in his or her earliest stage of life—in utero. Common sense tells me that the promise of our Declaration of Independence must include every living member of the human family, regardless of size. If it did not, we have no moral right to the freedom we all cherish for ourselves.

MORAL BEHAVIOR

The blobling is the gateway into the human family. It’s the point where moral behavior becomes the overriding determining principle; once new life begins, a woman’s right to choose is transformed into a woman’s obligation to be responsible to the procreative power of motherhood, i.e., to protect and nurture the person growing in her womb. There is no doubt that a woman’s right to choose is an intrinsic right, she is the sole judge of when and if she wants to have a baby. However, in a civil society all rights and freedoms have limitations that demand responsible behavior. The right to choose must be exercised before conception; this is clearly the historical meaning of reproductive rights. Once a blobling has been conceived, by the “choice” of human behavior that produces life; the right to choose has been exercised. Thereafter, choosing to abort the blobling in the process of growth is to exercise a second choice, that second choice deprives the blobling of his or her rights, and is an act of one person choosing to have another person killed. Under the conditions of full knowledge and reflection, this choice can be defined as an immoral act of willful murder.

THE BLOBLINGS

A blobling (zygote) is a tiny one-celled person in the womb, but its right to life is full-sized. We call these tiny persons, in the womb-phase of life, bloblings for several reasons. Abortion advocates had thrust a version of the term down our throats for years, telling us that what existed in the womb was only a “blob of tissue” and they even went so far as to claim that this “blob of tissue” was a part of the mother’s body. Obviously, their purpose was to sidestep the reality of logic and science, to mitigate their guilt for supporting the destruction of what they knew in their hearts to be a new human person. Our position is that it would be more accurate to identify these so-called “blobs of tissue” as human seedlings planted in utero. Each blobling is a separate person, individuated by a full complement of DNA. Bloblings are innocent, voiceless, and defenseless members of our human family; they have the right to continue nature’s cycle of growth to birth, and beyond. The moment a new human life begins in the womb, he or she is equal to every other living human person in any other stage of life, and is entitled to all rights, and it’s our duty to defend those rights.

We believe America must reclaim its greatness and its goodness, and that can only happen when every single living human person is free to enjoy the promise of our Declaration of Independence. Today, a new life in the womb is judged as subhuman, without the right to continue to live. Only a mother’s choice of acceptance can grant full humanity to the preborn life in her womb. If a new preborn life is not granted a mother’s choice , it can be destroyed despite the fact that he or she has the same intrinsic nature as one who is chosen to live.