Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Abortion’

We know about Bristol’s pregnacy – Why not other politicians’ daughters?

September 3, 2008 1 comment

The following is from Slate magazine.

Miss Conceptions

The invisible pregnancies of presidential daughters.


Is Sarah Palin the first nominee on a major-party presidential ticket whose daughter got pregnant out of wedlock? Or is she just the first whose daughter didn’t get an abortion?

The reason you’re reading about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy is that she’s taking it to term. If she had aborted it, you’d never have known. Which raises the question: How many other daughters of nominees have gotten knocked up without your knowledge?

The writer then makes an analysis of the 37 daughters between 17 and 30 of candidates for president and vice president beginning in 1964.  The he uses statistics from Guttmacher to come up with   

the rate of unintended pregnancy among 18- to 29-year-olds in the higher income bracket is probably around 6 percent to 7 percent.

An unintended pregnancy rate of 6 to 7 percent, in a population of 37 women, means two to three pregnancies per year. Even if you discount the rate further, on the grounds that these are the wealthiest and best-educated families, the notion that none of these young women got knocked up before their parents’ nominations or elections is—pardon the term—almost inconceivable.

If any of these daughters conceived, but no pregnancy or birth was reported, what happened? One possibility is miscarriage. But the Guttmacher analysis suggests a different answer: Most unintended pregnancies in the higher income and education brackets end in abortion.

Remember that before you judge or poke fun at Sarah Palin. She’s not the candidate whose daughter messed up. She’s the candidate who didn’t get rid of the mess.

Read the whole thing at http://www.slate.com/id/2199086/

McCain just arrived at the airport.  All 7 of his kids were there to greet him as well as Sarah’s family.  Bristol’s fiance was with her and holding her hand.  McCain stopped and gave her a great big hug, talked with her and Levi and clapped Levi on the back.  Great move on his part – it was very touching.  I think they’re going to be fine; the worst is over.  Looking forward to Sarah’s speech tonight.

Julia

Fake Baby Story debunked by Anchorage Editor

September 2, 2008 Leave a comment

From Byron York at National Review On-line.

Palin and the Bloggers   [Byron York]

Here in St. Paul, I was on NPR this evening with a man named Michael Carey, who is a columnist and former editorial page editor for the Anchorage Daily News.  We started talking, of course, about the day’s Palin news — the fake baby story and the real baby story.  As far as the fake baby story was concerned, Carey told me that the rumors were going around in Alaska a few months ago, not long after the birth of Sarah Palin’s fifth child.  He told me that Daily News reporters and editors explored the story quite extensively, and, as Carey said on NPR, "could find no basis for it except that people who didn’t like Sarah Palin believed it."  He told me that Daily News reporters talked at length to the Palins about it — Carey said the Palins were actually eager to talk about the rumor because they knew how much it had spread around Alaska.  He also said Daily News reporters looked into the medical angle of the rumor, which included talking to at least one doctor involved, and again found nothing to support the story.  In the end, Carey told me, the newspaper became "convinced that it was not true."

What is amazing about all this is how making just one phone call to a man like Carey could have given some of the bloggers at The Atlantic and DailyKos pause before they wrote so extensively about it.  Why didn’t they do that?

I think some of the fervor for trashing Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol about the real baby story is their way of obscuring how stupid the fake baby story was.   This is so ignorant and vicious.  The baby stories and how they have been handled will not lose any votes and will strengthen the resolve of those who support McCain and Palin.

Julia

Egan to Pelosi: Smile, The Kid’s Waving at You!

August 26, 2008 Leave a comment

Note the date of the Life Magazine cover – 1965.  This is relevant to the message that follows.

#11 LIFE (April 30, 1965)Lifemagazinebabyphoto
The fetus became widely recognized after LIFE published Linnart Nilsson’s photograph of an 18-week-old fetus inside the womb on its April 30, 1965 cover. Swedish photographer Nilsson used an endoscope with an electronic flash to capture both the cover picture and pictures appearing inside the magazine to chronicle the beginning of human life. These pictures are part of Nilsson’s book, A Child is Born, which sold eight million copies in the first four days after publication

Source:  Top 20 Magazine Covers of all Time:  http://arcagility.wordpress.com/2007/09/30/top-20-magazine-covers/

From National Review On-Line:

Shepherdly Pile-On   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

STATEMENT OF HIS EMINENCE, EDWARD CARDINAL EGAN

CONCERNING REMARKS MADE BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

            Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008.  What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.18weeks256x257   

            We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers.  No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb.  In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons.  They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith.  Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

                                                            Edward Cardinal Egan

                                                            Archbishop of New York

Week 8

08weeks2_208x213
The embryo is reactive to its environment inside the amniotic sac where it swims and moves. Hands and feet can be seen. At the end of week 8, the embryonic period is over and the fetal stage begins.

Bishops on Abortion and Catholic Politicians

August 26, 2008 Leave a comment

I have lifted the following entirely from Rocco Palmo’s blog "Whispers in the Loggio" that keeps an eye on Catholic doings.  You have probably heard a lot of conflicting statements on Catholics and abortion.  The bishops have finally decided the time has come to publicly set the record straight.  Here’s Rocco’s collection of the recent statements of various bishops:

Monday, August 25, 2008

Prelates v. Pelosi: As DNC Opens, Speaker Taken to Task

Hours into a week the Democratic leadership’s sought to script down to its most minute detail, the party’s "Catholic problem" roared to the fore today as, in an unprecedented move, the opening of the Blue bloc’s Denver convention saw four senior hierarchs publicly blast the event’s chair — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — for "misrepresent[ing] the history and nature" of the church’s teaching on abortion in the California congresswoman’s latest defense of her pro-choice stance.

Barely a day after presidential nominee-in-waiting Barack Obama tapped another pro-choice Catholic, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, as his running mate, and as the party approved a platform declaring its "unequivocal" support of abortion rights "regardless of [a woman’s] ability to pay," church pro-lifers launched into action following this exchange between Pelosi and Tom Brokaw on yesterday’s Meet the Press:

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama [said] the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you’re looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, "Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?" what would you tell him?

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…

MR. BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it…

REP. PELOSI: I understand that.

MR. BROKAW: …begins at the point of conception.

REP. PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions. That’s why we have this fight in Congress over contraception. My Republican colleagues do not support contraception. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must–it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think. But that is not the case. So we have to take–you know, we have to handle this as respectfully–this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been–and I’m not saying Rick Warren did, because I don’t think he did, but others will try to.

In response, late today the following statement was released in the name of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops by the chairs of the body’s Committees for Pro-Life Activities and Doctrine, Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia and Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport:

In the course of a “Meet the Press” interview on abortion and other public issues on August 24, 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion.

The Church has always taught that human life deserves respect from its very beginning and that procured abortion is a grave moral evil. In the Middle Ages, uninformed and inadequate theories about embryology led some theologians to speculate that specifically human life capable of receiving an immortal soul may not exist until a few weeks into pregnancy. While in canon law these theories led to a distinction in penalties between very early and later abortions, the Church’s moral teaching never justified or permitted abortion at any stage of development.

These mistaken biological theories became obsolete over 150 years ago when scientists discovered that a new human individual comes into being from the union of sperm and egg at fertilization. In keeping with this modern understanding, the Church has long taught that from the time of conception (fertilization), each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person, beginning with respect for the fundamental right to life.

In addition to the conference’s pamphlet on "a pro-life church," the USCCB release included as supplemental documents its prior statements on the responsibilities of Catholics in public life and, even more notably, the worthy reception of the Eucharist.

A further Washington response came from the capital’s Archbishop Donald Wuerl:

On Meet the Press this past Sunday, August 23, 2008, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made statements regarding the teaching of the Catholic Church, human life and abortion that were incorrect.

Speaker Pelosi responded to a question on when life begins by mentioning she was Catholic. She went on to say, “And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition…” After Mr. Tom Brokaw, the interviewer, pointed out that the Catholic Church feels strongly that life begins at conception, she replied, “I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy.”

We respect the right of elected officials such as Speaker Pelosi to address matters of public policy that are before them, but the interpretation of Catholic faith has rightfully been entrusted to the Catholic bishops. Given this responsibility to teach, it is important to make this correction for the record.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear: the current teaching of the Catholic Church on human life and abortion is the same teaching as it was 2,000 years ago. The Catechism reads:

“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception…Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.” (Catechism, 2270-2271)

The Catechism goes on to quote the Didache, a treatise that dates to the first century: “’You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.’”

From the beginning, the Catholic Church has respected the dignity of all human life from the moment of conception to natural death.

And from Denver — where the weekend interview took place — a statement addressed to the Catholic commuity there was issued by the host-city’s lead prelates, Archbishop Charles Chaput OFM Cap. and Auxiliary Bishop James Conley (emphases original):

Catholic public leaders inconvenienced by the abortion debate tend to take a hard line in talking about the "separation of Church and state." But their idea of separation often seems to work one way. In fact, some officials also seem comfortable in the role of theologian. And that warrants some interest, not as a "political" issue, but as a matter of accuracy and justice.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettably, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them….

Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition overwhelmingly held that abortion was grievously evil. In the absence of modern medical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or "ensouled." But none diminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong.

Of course, we now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today’s religious alibis for abortion and a so-called "right to choose" are nothing more than that – alibis that break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief.

Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it – whether they’re famous or not – fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.

As of press time, no public comment had been made by Pelosi’s hometown ordinary, Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco, and the speaker’s spokespeople declined several outlets’ early requests for a statement.

A product of Catholic schools, the Baltimore-born speaker admitted in a C-SPAN interview earlier this month that, as a "regular communicant," denial of the Eucharist would be "a severe blow" to her were the boom ever to be lowered.

"It depends on the bishop in a certain region," she said of the possibility of ecclesial sanction, adding that "fortunately, for me," it hasn’t been an issue.

Speaking at length during the hourlong sit-down on the role faith plays in her life, the first woman to head the House noted that "it’s easy for me to talk about being raised Roman Catholic."

While her "very devout" Italian parents "would be so proud" of her political accomplishments, "they really never raised me to [be] Speaker," she said.

"But they did raise me to be holy."

First elected to Congress in 1987, Pelosi’s record on abortion votes has garnered a 100% rating from both the choice lobby’s leading advocacy groups, Planned Parenthood and NARAL.


PHOTO: Getty Images

-30-

A bit of explanation.  It was not until about 1830 that the scientific community finally realized that it wasn’t just material from the father that made a baby.  With microscopes they discovered that the reproductive system of the mother produced an egg with was fertilized by the father causing human life to begin.  Before that it was assumed that the mother merely nutured what had been placed within her by the father.  They thought that at some point a human started forming; that it wasn’t a new human life unless it started having limbs, etc.  They had no way of knowing about sperm and eggs.  So when Pelosi says there has been disagreement over the ages, it was only as to when the child started forming. 

There has never been a time when the Church did not condemn abortion.  This condemnation was one of the things that set Christianity apart from the normal practices in the Roman Empire.  It was also the practice that when a child was born if the father did not physically pick it up to claim it, the baby was left at a crossroads or some other place to either die or be picked up by others to raise as their own child.  This is the source of the many ancient stories about children being left outside and raise by sheepherders and claiming royal thrones when they grew up.   Any poor child could have fantasies about actually being a royal who had been rejected by the father who was king or powerful.  This very common practice was also condemned by Christianity along with abortion and made the new religion an uncomfortable critic of what was considered normal – kind of like today.   

Whether you agree with the Catholic position or not, now you know when self-described Catholic politicians are pulling the wool over your eyes about what their church actually teaches.

Julia 

No Illinois Law in Place to Protect “Born Alive” Infants

August 20, 2008 Leave a comment

From National Review On-Line.  In case you were wondering about Obama’s repeated statement that there were already laws on the books in Illinois that protected infants born alive althought doctors had intended an abortion. 

Were there "already" laws protecting premature infants, as Senator Obama has at various times stated in defending his vote against the born-alive bill?   [David Freddoso]

The answer is that no law was protecting them. We know this for certain because the Illinois attorney general at the time, Jim Ryan — the man charged with enforcing state laws — wrote a letter on July 17, 2000, expressing his finding that Christ Hospital was breaking no laws in leaving premature babies to die after they survived abortions.

Ryan wrote:

While we are deeply respectful of your serious concerns about the practices and methods of abortions at this hospital, we have concluded that there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital or its employees, agents or staff at this time.

So again: according to the state’s chief enforcer of the law, Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal when they left premature babies to die after they had survived abortions. Note that this is this is the very reason legislators were trying to pass the born-alive bill in the first place.

No Illinois Law in Place to Protect “Born Alive” Infants

August 20, 2008 Leave a comment

From National Review On-Line.  In case you were wondering about Obama’s repeated statement that there were already laws on the books in Illinois that protected infants born alive althought doctors had intended an abortion. 

Were there "already" laws protecting premature infants, as Senator Obama has at various times stated in defending his vote against the born-alive bill?   [David Freddoso]

The answer is that no law was protecting them. We know this for certain because the Illinois attorney general at the time, Jim Ryan — the man charged with enforcing state laws — wrote a letter on July 17, 2000, expressing his finding that Christ Hospital was breaking no laws in leaving premature babies to die after they survived abortions.

Ryan wrote:

While we are deeply respectful of your serious concerns about the practices and methods of abortions at this hospital, we have concluded that there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital or its employees, agents or staff at this time.

So again: according to the state’s chief enforcer of the law, Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal when they left premature babies to die after they had survived abortions. Note that this is this is the very reason legislators were trying to pass the born-alive bill in the first place.

Obama Misrepresenting Illinois Legislation He Killed

August 15, 2008 Leave a comment

Via National Review’s The Corner On-Line:

Barack Obama’s Campaign Responds to Charge He Lied About Abortion

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
August 14
, 2008

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — The campaign of pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama has responded to charges that he misrepresented his views on an abortion bill that protected babies who survive abortions. The Obama camp essentially repeated the claims that Obama opposed the bill for legitimate reasons.

At issue are Obama’s votes during his tenure in the Illinois legislature.

Obama chaired a committee that oversaw a bill requiring appropriate medical care for babies who survive abortions or were left to die after a purposeful premature birth.

He ultimately voted against the bill claiming it would somehow interfere the so-called right to abortion under Roe v. Wade and said he would have voted for a federal bill doing the same thing but with language added making it irrelevant to Roe.

However, new documents released by the National Right to Life Committee from the Illinois legislature show the same language found in the federal bill was added as an amendment to the Illinois legislation and that Obama voted for it but ultimately voted down the anti-infanticide bill.

The Obama camp responded to the charges saying, "In recent days the right wing blogosphere and rumor mongers have falsely accused Senator Obama of misrepresenting his position on ‘Born Alive’ legislation."

The Obama campaign claimed, "Senator Obama supported such legislation when it did not threaten the Constitutional rights embodied in Roe v Wade."

Obama staffers issued a factsheet recycling old newspaper stories and documents with Obama’s old claims on the subject and didn’t offer much new evidence

"The state and federal born alive infant protection acts did not include exactly the same language," Obama’s camp claimed and it complained the Illinois bill said "a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.”

However, Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for National Right to Life, says Obama’s campaign is still misrepresenting the truth.

"It is rather astonishing that, in light of the new documents that came to light this week, the Obama campaign here continues to brazenly misrepresent the content of the state Born-Alive Infants Protection Act that Obama killed in 2003," he told LifeNews.com.

Johnson said the language of the abortion-neutrality clause Obama supported was the exact same language as the federal version and Obama is wrong to say he opposed the bill because it didn’t have the language in place.

He also said the Obama campaign is falsely saying that neutrality amendment was not included in the final language of the bill Obama voted against and pointed to official documents saying that’s not the case.

"The claimed differences cited simply did not exist at the time that Obama and his colleagues voted down the bill on March 13, 2003," Johnson said.

Johnson also said the House of Representatives in Congress voted for the anti-infanticide bill in 2000 — long before the neutrality clause was added. That bipartisan vote of 380-15 approved the bill and put Obama out of step with even pro-abortion lawmakers who supported it.

Printed from: http://www.lifenews.com/state3448.html

In other words – Obama put the kabosh on legislation in Illinois that was perfectly acceptible to even pro-abortion legislators in Illinois and at the Federal level. 

Julia  

Obama on Abortion

August 7, 2008 Leave a comment

Here is the story about the bill that Obama voted against 3 times. The Bill would have ended the barbaric practice of leaving babies to die after an induced labor abortion.

Thanks to Mike’s America on a comment at Flopping Aces

I Invented the Internet (Episode 4: Kill and Destroy)

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: ,

More form ther Hypocrisy front

May 7, 2008 Leave a comment

So we can have crosses that are representing the soldiers lost in Iraq and the War on Terror, but to show that an abortion is a loss of life is wrong.    Is there a double standard here???   I am sure this guy would applaud someone if they put up crosses for the fallen soldiers in protest to us Defending ourselves, but this is an outrage to him.     Boo Fricking Hoo.   Hypocrisy at its greatest. Oh the poor girls that think that an abortion is just another form of birth control will see that some people actually see a life in that baby.  Give me a break, they will still go on using abortion for birth control ,but maybe someone might see what they are talking about.   A fetus is a life also and we have lost millions to the abortion clinics, especially the African Americans, thanks to Margaret Sanger and her cheerleading of aborting the lesser races through Eugenics.

H/T to Hot Air’s Allahpundit

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: ,

Every Vote should count

April 23, 2008 Leave a comment

Unless it goes against the Democrats in Tennessee or against the cruel partial birth abortion.

From The Blue Collar Muse

Democrats Disenfranchise Tennessee Voters …

Those who remember almost any recent election will likely stop to read that headline again.  After all, isn’t it the Democrats who have been making the claim every other year that their voters have been disenfranchised?
Isn’t it the other guys that do that sort of thing? The answers are yes
and no. ‘Yes’, it’s the Democrats that claim it but, ‘No’, it’s not the
other guys that do it. Hypocritically, it is Democrats that claim it
and the Democrats that do it. One need look no further than Tennessee
SJR 127 for proof.

In 2000, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled
that common sense legislation pertaining to abortion in Tennessee be
struck down. Things like a 48 hour waiting period and full disclosure
of the impact of having an abortion to any woman seeking one were
thrown out. It is vital to note that none of this legislation
prevented, in any way, a woman’s access to abortion. Just the opposite.
How is it possible that more information and consideration of such a
decision would be bad for a woman considering such a medical procedure?
The Court, as courts often do, ruled otherwise. Once again, a small
group of appointed individuals, set aside the will of the people as
expressed through their duly elected representatives.

Since 2004, SJR 127 has been introduced into the Tennessee Senate
and passed by a wide majority each time. Each time it has gone to the
Tennessee House where it has died in Committee, the Public Health and
Family Assistance Subcommittee of Health and Human Resources Committee
to be precise. It was the same earlier this year. On a party line vote,
the Subcommittee refused to allow SJR 127 to come out of committee to
the full House where it would pass and then be put on the ballot in
2010 for all Tennesseans to vote on. Six committee members, all
Democrats, are preventing six million Tennesseans from having their say.  Talk about disenfranchising voters!

The resolution these six anti-democracy Democrats are keeping from appearing on the ballot is as follows:

Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right
to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain
the right through their elected state representatives and state
senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion,
including circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or
when necessary to save the life of the mother.–Blue Collar Muse

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: ,
Two Heads are Better Than One

But we'd be happy if everyone just tried using his (or her) own

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Truth, Lies and In Between

“Every time I let the government make a choice for me, I give up a little more of my freedom. I become more dependent and reliant on government to manage my life. I am right where the Socialists want me to be – perpetually dependent on them.” -J.D. Pendry

Token Dissonance

Black & gay, young & conservative. A Southern gentleman writes about life and politics after Yale

Be kind.

An imperfect Christian's journey into life and faith.

qwithaview

Just another WordPress.com site

Kemberlee's Blog

My little page for my little thoughts

Rogue Government

“If you're already in a fight, you want the first blow to be the last and you had better be the one to throw it.” - Garry Kasparov

Cry Liberty

For life, liberty, and the pursuit of all who threaten it

What do I think?

Letting you know exactly where I stand! You have to decide for yourself!

Deidra Alexander's Blog

I have people to kill, lives to ruin, plagues to bring, and worlds to destroy. I am not the Angel of Death. I'm a fiction writer.