The worst part was hearing some of the final text messages read on the evening news. "This will be the last time I can tell you mom, 'I love you!'"
I just can't imagine, if I was one of those parents, how I would be reacting at present.
Part of why the death of children is so tragic has largely to do with their innocence.
They are young. They see the world from an ideal perspective. They don't wish to be counted as part of the problem, but always part of the solution.
So when we hear of their lights going out, their numbers being called, their lives being taken, we should--if we are normal in the least bit--be stricken by a series of "big questions."
"Why did that happen to them?" "What did they do to deserve it?""How do we insure it doesn't happen to anyone else?"
In the South Korean case, the captain--fearing greater loss of life--told ferry-goers to "stay onboard the ship." He will now be punished under South Korean law, possibly paying for his lapse in judgment with the rest of his "natural born days."
So why won't U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland?
You likely don't know anything about him, but he has ordered the continued execution of children in the state of North Dakota. He did so despite understanding that the United States Declaration of Independence's first guaranteed, enumerated, and articulated right is the right to life. He did so despite also knowing that the children he ordered the continued execution of have not only absolute proof of identity as humans, but evidence of genuine lives--a pulse.
He claimed that allowing the children to live would be a decision that would be "invalid and unconstitutional." Which is really weird when you consider it, because I have yet to hear that the Declaration of Independence is in violation of the Constitution.
He also added in his finding that such allowance would "not be able to withstand a constitutional challenge."
But most shockingly he made this decision, not in the vacuum of absolute proof, but in the very presence of it, that the person in question had an actual beating heart.
The Heartbeat Bill
So even in the presence of such unquestioned proof, Judge Daniel Hovland believes he is on the right side of "women's" rights groups by ordering the continued--merciless and unnecessary murders of children in the state of North Dakota.
So let me obliterate a bit of confusion here: It's ok in North Dakota to kill your child (under a certain age), even if you hear it's heart beating!
So let me amplify a bit of truth: It is legal to commit this level of genocide, especially if you have evidence that causes you to believe that said child will feel pain, and experience trauma.
So why--in a society that relishes the rule of law, and justice for all--are judges like U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland making such rulings?
Well the truth is there are a few reasons.
The politicians ensure that they will get more and more campaign dollars for allowing the practice. The abortionist ensures future revenue streams. And for Joe and Julie American who go and have their child killed they get to continue the path of their new found religion--where convenience comes before someone else's struggle for life.
I mean we dare not let a little thing like the miraculous creation of a new human get in the least little bit in the way of my plans, my life, or my fun. I mean even the thought of carrying a child for nine months only to adopt it out would interrupt my priorities pretty bad. And who is this kid to demand my time to begin with?
Yep their little whims trump the actual Declared right for another person to live...
Imagine that, a preference being exalted above an actually defined and articulated right from God and recognized by our government.
Perhaps a more pertinent question to Americans is, "Why do we weep for the 300 lost children in the ferry waters off of South Korea?"
Merely multiply that by 100,000 times and thats the number of federally funded abortions our tax dollars helped Planned Parenthood kill last year.
But nobody wept...
And all 300,000+ had beating hearts.