Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Virginia Dem Mayor Nixes ‘Abortion Provider Appreciation Day’ Resolution After Backlash

Virginia Dem Mayor Nixes ‘Abortion Provider Appreciation Day’ Resolution After Backlash

Always be LOUD AND PROUD, fellow pro-lifers. Always speak up for human life, inside and out of the womb.

Democratic Mayor Justin Wilson of Alexandria, VA, pulled a resolution that thanked abortion providers.

Wilson said in an email they pulled the resolution at his “request.” The Alexandria City Council would have voted on the proclamation today. From The Daily Wire:

The mayor acknowledged that there is “controversy associated with the provision of abortion services, but our effort is to recognize the healthcare workers for the work that they do in our City.”

“The proclamation you are referring to is part of a national effort, timed to occur 29 years after the date of the murder of an OB-GYN in Florida, who was murdered for providing legal and safe healthcare services,” he explained.

It’s disgusting someone murdered the OB-GYN. The murderer is not pro-life nor does the person provide an accurate representation of the million pro-lifers in America.

Arlington Bishop Michael Burbidge pleaded with Alexandria residents to condemn the resolution:

“Violence of every kind must be condemned, and abortion is a direct, violent attack on human life,” Burbidge said in a statement. “Proposing a celebration of abortion and an ‘appreciation day’ for those who destroy lives defies comprehension.”

“The City of Alexandria should instead do the opposite,” he continued. “It should celebrate all those who save, protect and care for human life. It should re-direct its focus toward recognizing and supporting both mothers and their children, as so many dedicated and compassionate people in Alexandria do each day.”

Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin told The Daily Wire he was “saddened and disappointed” Alexandria even considered making the proclamation.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

2smartforlibs | March 8, 2022 at 11:12 am

To all you people that think your leaders: Turn around are you being followed? If not your not leading.

They really can’t help playing to the cheap seats, can they?

I’ve often wondered if, for example, the murderer of the OB-GYN could use a “defense of others” legal defense. I guess it depends on whether the fetus is a “person.” I can see an individual using that rationalization to justify the act. I doubt any judge today would allow it.

    fscarn in reply to Tim1911. | March 8, 2022 at 2:45 pm

    In a morally sane world that defense is part of the natural law. It was tried way back in the 1990s when members of Operation Rescue were criminally charged with trespass and other crimes. ALL lefty judges shot that down. We’re no longer in a morally sane world.

    AnAdultInDiapers in reply to Tim1911. | March 9, 2022 at 9:48 am

    A foetus is not a person. It’s a parasite. Support women ridding their bodies of unwanted parasites.

    (I’m pro-abortion and anti-murder)

      Nanoushka in reply to AnAdultInDiapers. | March 9, 2022 at 2:35 pm

      Sex is designed to create new life. Those engaging in that activity are well-aware that choosing to have sex may result in pregnancy. It’s disingenuous to refer to an unborn child as a parasite, when women’s bodies are designed to nourish and support development and growth of the child for 40 weeks.

      Pro-choice is just another way to say selfish and irresponsible

Ah, science, morality, and a conservation of principles and principals. The consensus is changing. One step forward.

There is no mystery in sex and conception, a woman (and man) have four choices, self-defense through reconciliation, and the wicked solution a.k.a. planned parent/hood a.k.a. reproductive rites a.k.a. Roe, Roe, Roe your baby…, until viability (i.e. heartbeat, nervous system function) and earlier with humane development.

“The proclamation you are referring to is part of a national effort, timed to occur 29 years after the date of the murder of an OB-GYN in Florida, who was murdered for providing legal and safe healthcare services,” he explained.

One baby aborted in 29 years… safe and rare, indeed. Still, there is room for improvement.

“. . . timed to occur 29 years after the date of the murder of an OB-GYN in Florida, who was murdered for providing legal and safe healthcare services,” the mayor explained.

How about, “who was murdered because he was providing murdering-of-the-unborn services.”

It’s disgusting someone murdered the OB-GYN. The murderer is not pro-life nor does the person provide an accurate representation of the million pro-lifers in America.

That it’s disgusting is your opinion; many will agree with you, but many will not. The killer was certainly pro-life; there is nothing anti-life about killing a murderer. Whether he provides an accurate representation of the (much much more than a million) pro-lifers in America is an open question. My guess is that he doesn’t represent all the many millions of pro-lifers, but he does represent at least a million of them.

To me it depends what his motive was. If it was to punish this murderer, then I condemn it, because he was not a duly authorized court of law, and had not afforded the murderer due process. Ordinary people can’t go around executing other people, imprisoning them, or fining them, just because we decide that they have committed crimes that deserve those penalties. That is called murder, kidnapping, or robbery. Only a properly instituted justice system is entitled to do so, and only after the due process of law.

But if this killer’s intent was to save the lives of all the babies that the murderer was going to kill, and if it was reasonable to suppose that killing him would indeed save those lives (e.g there was no other abortionist available), and if there was no less lethal method available of doing so (such as breaking his fingers), then I endorse the killing, and do not call it murder.

This is the killing the proclamation was intended to commemorate. It looks like the intent was to prevent future abortions, rather than to punish the abortionist for his past abortions. In my opinion that is a good justification, provided that it is objectively an effective means of achieving this goal, and that the goal could not reasonably be achieved by other means. It’s not justified if it could easily be predicted that all the babies Gunn would have killed would instead by killed by someone else, or if it were possible to put Gunn out of action without killing him.