WET PEOPLE ARE NOT HUMAN

It won’t surprise anyone who knows me that I am staunchly pro-life. I have however attempted, on many occasions, to enter into the minds of pro-choice advocates to understand why they refuse to recognize the unborn as human beings. Today I came across the following sections of our Criminal Code which attempts to define when a child “becomes” a human. Here is what it says:

“When child becomes human being
223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not
(a) it has breathed;
(b) it has an independent circulation; or
(c) the navel string is severed.”

This is interesting logic: Exposure to air makes you human. Wet people are not human.

A few years ago our cat had kittens. As the babies came out one by one, logical processes caused me to recognize that I was witnessing the birth of a litter of kittens, each of which was just as much a kitten the day before it was exposed to air, as it was afterwards. Exposure to air did not magically make these creatures kittens—they were just as feline in the birth canal as they were when they dropped into the birthing box. I doubt any objective person would debate this unless they felt uncomfortable with the implications of my observations for abortion.
Curiously, the Code also states:

“Killing child
(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 206.”

If I read this right, it means that I, as a human can be charged with homicide for injuring a non-human (who is in amniotic fluid) (according to #223) only if he is later exposed to air. Can you help me with this logic? How does being in the air suddenly make me human???? Does exposure to air trigger the sudden appearance of human DNA or something? I just don’t get it.

Further the Code states,

“Killing unborn child in act of birth
238. (1) Every one who causes the death, in the act of birth, of any child that has not become a human being, in such a manner that, if the child were a human being, he would be guilty of murder, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life. (Criminal Code ( R.S., 1985, c. C-46 )).”

Here’s how it all breaks down:
•Kill a child inside the mother and its okay (because they are still surrounded by amniotic fluid).

•Injure the same child inside the mother so that she dies outside the mother and that’s bad; 25-years-in-jail-bad (because exposure to air makes you human?).

•So that means the space you occupy (atmospheric or amniotic) is what defines you (or it) as human or non-human.

All this talk of being wet or dry (unborn or born) got me thinking. Based upon this reasoning I could conclude that I cease to be human every time I strap a SCUBA tank on my back, submerse myself in water and rely upon a little hose to supply me with oxygen. But when I re-immerge, and dry myself off, I become human again!

I try. I really, really try to understand pro-choice thinking, but I JUST DON’T GET IT!!!!

Abortion Protester Murdered

On September the 11th James Pouillon, a long time abortion protester was shot dead by Harlan Drake while protesting abortion outside of a Michigan high school in an apparent hate crime. Drake says he was "offended" by Pouillon's messages. Yet where is the condemnation of this murderous act from the American President (who took 48 hours to issue a one-sentence response), the media or liberal left? On the other hand, when an abortion provider is killed, everyone gasps with shock and horror! I am so angered by the double-standard of this event and am reassured that this is not a political issue at all but an issue of good vs. evil. Isaiah the prophet warned, beware when men call good evil and evil good (Is. 5:20). That is precisely the issue here. By their silence, the liberal left is showing their lack of compassion for Mr. Pouillon and their love for murderous abortion providers.