Posted on 01/20/2004 2:15:21 PM PST by cpforlife.org
What a difference a year makes.
The map above has been updated to reflect the number of children murdered by surgical abortion in this past year, about 1.4 million in the U.S., roughly half the population of Mississippi, shaded in red. When added to the 17 states in black, this equals a population of 44,000,000. It's the sickening truth America,
44 MILLION innocent babies have been dismembered by surgical abortion since Roe v Wade on January 22, 1973.
The war on Terrorism:
To try to get some additional perspective on this number, lets look at the war on terrorism. Some 3,000 people died in the horrific attacks of 9-11-01. The number of U.S. service members who have died in Iraq since the war began last March of 2003 reached 500 in the last several days. Also earlier this month we suffered the 100th fatality in the U.S. military's two-year Afghan campaign. So we as a nation have lost some 3,600 people from the attacks of 9-11-01, AND all combat on the war on terror in the last 27 months. That is less than ONE DAY of killing for the abortionists.
What if every day, for the last two years, 3,600 Americans died at the hands of terrorists? Imagine if 2,600 service men and women were brought home in boxes every day; and terrorists butchered another 1,000 civilians here at home—every day. What would that do to our nation—mentally, emotionally, and spiritually?
Unimaginable.
From an unborn person’s perspective things are worse, much worse. Every day for the last 31 years, about 4,000 Americans HAVE died at the hands of terrorists!
About one out every fourth pregnancy in America is ended by abortion.
Abortionists are the most lethal and brutal terrorists in the world. Their kill rate is over 99%, far deadlier than any of Saddam’s henchmen. The pain abortionists inflict on unborn children older than 16-20 weeks is far more excruciating than the most vicious forms of torture Uday and Qusay ever used on their poor victims.
The last 31 years of “legalized” abortion has severely damaged this nation’s sense of basic right and wrong. As the CULTure of death metastasizes, nearly every imaginable attack against the Family and of innocent life has come to pass or is being seriously discussed.
Abortion is a very depressing subject, one we would prefer not to think about. But avoiding the topic and wishing it would go away is as effective as on any other deadly condition.
BUT WHAT CAN I DO TO STOP IT?
CLICK THIS LINK TO A LIST OF 56 DIFFERENT THINGS TO DO. THERE IS SOMETHING ON THE LIST FOR EVERYONE.
Beyond that there is only one thing (earthly speaking) that will end this culture of death. Comprehensive education, on the sanctity of life before birth, beginning in pre-K and lasting through high school. This will have to be done in order to have a sufficient populace who votes Pro-Life. There simply is NO other way to get the needed votes.
Not true. At #108 I explained my position, and you ignored those facts:
--- We cannot allow fed, state, or local governments to have the power to prohibit 'sinful' behaviors.
No matter how morally repugnant a majority may find certain acts or objects, we must observe our bill of rights in regulating them, in a reasonable fashion.
Criminalizing early term abortion as murder is an unreasonable prohibition; -- states have no such power..
Our government is not enpowered to make law respecting the precepts of specific religions, much less prosecute as murder the moral dilemma of early term abortion.
Learn to live with that constitutional fact.. It's the american way.
Your line, -- "The truth is hate to those who hate the truth", is very apt to your own dilemma herein..
You asked me to explain, & now hate the truth of my reply..
I don't care to argue with people who refuse to admit the validity of proven facts for reasons related to their own biases and political persuasion.
Mirror mirror on the wall...
No amount of truth will change a closed mind unless it's owner chooses to allow it, so believe what you want despite the facts that disprove those beliefs.
Yes, we are still free to belive as we choose. -- Yet you lobby to change that..
You have the corrupted law of the land in your corner to support your twisted ideas with it's police power,
I say our constitution is not corrupt & urge restraints on the use of its police powers, a power you want to increase..
and those of us who recognize the truth will continue the effort to expose the evil lies of the multi-billion dollar abortion industry and the Naziesque holocaust it has brought to America.
"Natziesque"? -- You are for using government force in this issue, not your opponents.
I find your use of the word "mother" here interesting. The mother of WHAT? (or should I say WHOM?) More importantly, though, the mother's right to her physical life has very little to do with abortion-killing. Whereas the law previously allowing the taking of the life of one where both would othersise die, it now perversly allows the taking of the life of one where both would otherwise live.
There is nothing arbitrary about the state protecting the inalienable right to life, just as there is nothing arbitary about the state protecing, in your words, the inalienable right to bear (carry) arms because enforcement of those rights is the very function of the state.
To argue for some supposed right to early term abortion-killing, is by logical extension, to argue against one's own right to life, which is self-defeating. It is self-evident that you are, ontologically speaking, the same person, the very same being you were from the moment you began to exist. It therefore would have been as much a violation of your right to life to attack and kill you at any stage of your life, whether it were three minutes, three weeks, or 3 years after you began to exist.
Cordially,
Tell me, just how would it be possible for me to disobey ROE v WADE?
Cordially,
The thief is not innocent in the general sense, but in his particular relation to you, he is. If you killed him you would be guilty of murder.
Cordially,
If you mean what constitutes just cause in the eyes of the law, there are still widely divergent standards. Under TX law protection of property with deadly force is a defense for homicide, in most states it isn't. I believe the laws of all states deem self defense to be just cause, but the threat level to life and limb that must exist for a homicide to qualify as self defense varies.
In the final analysis just cause is usually determined by a jury. One set of jurors may be persuaded that a defendent had just cause for homicide, another jury presented with the same evidence may not. Was the U.S. justified in bombing German and Japanese civilians apart from sites with military value during WWII? Ask 100 people at ramdom and I guarantee you will not find a consensus on that issue.
That argument doesn't hold water.
If the state is not allowed to prohibit "sinful behavior" it can not prohibit most criminal acts. The majority of what are deemed sins by major religions are also the basis of most secular law. If you're familiar with biblical commandments you must know that murder theft, perjury, and false testimony before a judge, among other things the state rightfully prohibits, are also sins in a religious context. Are you saying that the state has no authority to prohibit those "sins" and to punish those who commit them?
In the ultimate libertarian "paradise" you seem to advocate there would be a state of lawless anarchy in which individuals are subjected to the depredations of the most rapacious and violent, aka the law of the jungle, the absolute worst possible nightmare any society can experience.
Exactly my point. The right to life is the sine qua non of all other rights, including the right to carry.
The mothers pregnant womans right to life should be your constitutional concern, -- and her preborn fetus is her concern..
I find your use of the word "mother" here interesting. The mother of WHAT? (or should I say WHOM?)
Specious..
More importantly, though, the mother's right to her physical life has very little to do with abortion-killing. Whereas the law previously allowing the taking of the life of one where both would othersise die, it now perversly allows the taking of the life of one where both would otherwise live.
The constitution protects the woman from false 'murder' charges based on the criminalization of early term abortion.
There is nothing arbitrary about the state protecting the inalienable right to life, just as there is nothing arbitary about the state protecing, in your words, the inalienable right to bear (carry) arms because enforcement of those rights is the very function of the state. To argue for some supposed right to early term abortion-killing, is by logical extension, to argue against one's own right to life,
Tell it to the woman you would force to term.
which is self-defeating. It is self-evident that you are, ontologically speaking, the same person, the very same being you were from the moment you began to exist. It therefore would have been as much a violation of your right to life to attack and kill you at any stage of your life, whether it were three minutes, three weeks, or 3 years after you began to exist.
Three minutes after the lab tech combines egg & sperm, that combination has a constitutionally protected right to life? -- Get real, -- you are hyping the issue.
It's too bad we didn't vote for a pro-life Congress at the same time!
This is your quote! You did not specify Roe!
That argument doesn't hold water. If the state is not allowed to prohibit "sinful behavior" it can not prohibit most criminal acts.
Nonsense. Our common law defines criminal acts. Our constitution protects us from overzealous interpretations of what is 'crime'..
The majority of what are deemed sins by major religions are also the basis of most secular law. If you're familiar with biblical commandments you must know that murder theft, perjury, and false testimony before a judge, among other things the state rightfully prohibits, are also sins in a religious context. Are you saying that the state has no authority to prohibit those "sins" and to punish those who commit them?
I'm saying the state must follow our constitution in the writing of law. They cannot decree that early term abortion is murder, any more than decree 'assault' guns are prohibited..
In the ultimate libertarian "paradise" you seem to advocate there would be a state of lawless anarchy in which individuals are subjected to the depredations of the most rapacious and violent, aka the law of the jungle, the absolute worst possible nightmare any society can experience.
I advocate constitutional law, you do not.. You're having the [nightmare] dream, not me.
It would still be an unjustified killing, or murder, because the law does not normally allow excessive use of lethal force in such a circumstance. For example, one is not allowed to kill trespassers on one's property simply because they are trespassing. So even the thief in this case has committed a crime against you, you are still not allowed to kill him with impunity.
The definition of murder is now: The unjust killing of a person who is innocent in relation to the killer. Is that correct?
You can come up with a zillion different examples, none of which are analogous to the deliberate, unjustified killing of a prenatal infant, which is the original context of the definition of murder here. The zillion different examples will make it very difficult to come up with a short defintion of murder that will cover every case, and I suspect that you know that already.
Cordially,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.