Posted on 12/02/2002 4:06:12 PM PST by Z in Oregon
Is it ever right to cruelly kill innocent human life? No, of course not. Quite the opposite: It is always very wrong to cruelly kill innocent human life.
From the book, "Who Broke The Baby?", by Jeanne Garton: "At a time when society is calling for greater responsibility on the part of fathers... it seems ironic that the law denies them the appropriate legal rights necessary to protect their children when their children are the most dependent and the most vulnerable."
Pro-life men fight valiantly for the right to protect the fragile, vulnerable lives of tiny, innocent prenatal babies across America... and locally.
"Locally" refers to the right to legally protect the very lives of their own prenatal daughters and sons.
Under the out-of-thin-air travesty that is Roe vs. Wade, along with the later Danforth, Webster, and Casey cases, every father of every baby is prevented from stopping the brutally violent abortion death of his own child.
Society could not possibly institute anything more criminally detrimental than that. For its own health and future, society must be focused on legally fostering, sanctifying, and protecting fatherhood--- and not on putting a coldly destructive wall of abortion death between millions of perfectly innocent little prenatal babies and their devoted, caring, noble fathers. In the name of reason, spend a moment with the other side of the issue: If a man co-conceives, and so becomes a biological father, but then deserts the child, society is quick to condemn him.
O.K, but why?
Should a man feel a sense of responsibility towards a child of which he is the biological father? Should society hold him responsible for raising and supporting that child? Should he feel emotionally invested in and love his prenatal child? Should the life of his child matter more to him than his own?
Yes, of course, to all four questions. But why?
The meaning of life is in the answer to that question. Legally, men are held responsible for raising and supporting their children by virtue of genetic proof that the child is biologically theirs: that they are the father, as evidenced by their 23-chromosome genetic signature being present in every single cell of their child from the moment of their child's conception forward.
In effect, society has said to fathers that this genetic signature holds them to certain responsibilities.
Without doubt, that is best for children and for our society. And while a small-but-growing minority of fathers just want out of the picture, most fathers acknowledge the responsibility that they agreed to with their genetic signature, made a part of every cell of their prenatal baby daughter or son at the moment of their conception.
However, every signed contract, and indeed every civilized society, necessarily attaches rights to responsibilities. For responsibilities without concordant rights equals slavery. Our nation was founded on this premise; in the 1770's, it was referenced by the phrase, "No taxation without representation."
It is a timeless premise, timeless as all truth is. With responsibilities must come rights, and there is no right more foundational than the right to protect in law the life of one's own child.
For no one can claim rights to something that can be legally destroyed over their objections. That fact, along with the value of erring on the side of protecting innocent human life, is the central point of human civilization. And so, a principle must be established.
Will society continue its current anti-baby path, and align with the morality-free "Choice For Men" movement, which contends that all men must be legally entitled to desert the babies they father, and leave their ex-wife or ex-girlfriend to pay all of the bills for 18-21 years alone and single-handedly with zero help?
Or, will a pro-life society go the exact opposite way and endorse in law the natural right of every father whose baby was conceived in the course of consensual relations to stop the grotesquely violent killing/aborting of his own innocent baby from conception forward?
For America to prosper and be the best, most successful, pro-family, life-affirming society that it can be, the second path is the only right one. Fatherhood is biological, and completely contrary to all the deeply toxic feminist male-bashing propaganda, the vast majority of fathers are good men who have natural paternal instincts and the right to love their prenatal daughters and sons from the moment of conception forward. With that paternal instinct and love comes the immutable right to protect. The greatest day in the history of the United States of America will come when that right is protected in law, as it one day must be in a decent, moral, pro-fatherhood, pro-baby society. Check out the "pictures" link at www.abortiontv.com on the Internet to see what heartless horror millions of caring fathers deserve the legal right to protect their prenatal babies from.
As this nation moves through the 21st century, we must keep in mind that protecting perfectly innocent human life, as millions of good fathers are seeking the legal right to do, is progressive.
Destroying innocent human life, as the empathy-free advocates of abortion death so relish doing, is regressive. Especially when that innocent life is a wonderful human baby who has hurt no one and only wants to be loved, protected, valued, and taken care of.
In the end, it goes like this: babies are good. They have a right to life. Fathers have a natural need to protect their babies. This paternal instinct is the necessary center of humanity, the nuclear family, and for that matter, civilization itself.
And the very human life of every innocent, vulnerable, defenseless little pre-natal baby begins with the moment of conception.
"Each of us has a unique beginning, the moment of conception. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention. It is plain experimental evidence. Life has a very, very long history, but each individual has a very neat beginning: the moment of conception." -- Dr. Jerome Lejeune (Nobel Prize winner in genetics) We all began our unique and valuable lives in exactly the same way, with innumerable aspects of ourselves determined by the formation of our signature DNA, at conception. Half of our heredity was determined by each parent. Some of you may look more like your father; some of you may look more like your mother. Either way, it was determined at conception. Your conception.
This holds true for all of us. You, me, and every human being in the world, without exception.
Folks, I've written about the pro-life issue for years. For the first time, it looks like the long-awaited sea change is happening. It will take vigilance and sweat equity to keep it going, but it has begun. Nationally, America will begin 2003 with a Republican-controlled Senate, a Republican-controlled House of Representatives, and a Republican President. Nothing can stop that now, and united, they will rule the country for at least two years. Those two years provide a lot of time to appoint and confirm ardently pro-life Supreme Court Justices.
Our new United States Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman is named Orrin Hatch. The make-up of the courts is about to be changed for a generation. The dawn of the return to a life-affirming Constitutional Republic has finally arrived. So it was always meant to be.
This is unquestionably a profoundly progressive turn of events. For every nation must be judged on the basis of how well it protects its most innocent, gentle members, from little prenatal babies forward. The strength of every human is based upon how well they protect and foster innocence itself. Power is in the giving...
And further, a consistent pro-life ethic is the strongest, most rock-steady, empathically fundamental foundation a progressive, creative society could have. It's time to rebuild that foundation from the ground up.
Sure I think many of them would, don't you?
Could you clarify that?
[Because there are many smart women who have abortions to keep from having to work minimum wage jobs because they haven't established themselves yet. ]
Translation: There are many immoral women who have had abortions because they were not responsible enough to keep from creating a child until they could take care of it or because their 'career' was more important than the human being they had created.
There is a vast chasm of moral difference between murdering a life already in existence, and murdering a life so that some future life might come into existence. Every day, we take actions which prevent human life from coming into existence. We contracept, we choose not to engage in sex. What is wrong is creating a life, then murdering it. It's crazy that you could think that I would deny someone a life (once created), while defending baby murderers.
Actually, the trends and polls show that more and more Americans are coming to see abortion as immoral and wrong and a form of brutal killing. That's because those who know that it's horribly wrong continue to speak up for the unborn. When enough people see the wrongness of it, pressure will grow to protect the unborn. We're about to enact a ban on partial birth abortion (baby murder). That's very, very slow, but very definite progress.
I would work in minimum wage jobs for the rest of my life if such would prevent my child from being murdered and denied life. Most loving mothers would do the same.
At most colleges, there are plenty of men who would not. It all depends on whom you hang out with, there, dheretic! It might surprise you, but there are many, many men who would not destroy their son or daughter, but who would sacrifice and devote themselves to taking on the responsibility for the life that they had created. I hope that you meet such men. You might have to seek them out. But they are there, I assure you.
I contend that refusing to speak up against a moral atrocity, whether one is successful or not, is insanity - because such leads to an ever more evil world. Like the men and women of Germany, most of whom hid behind their doors while Jews were being led away, we have allowed a holocaust against the unborn to be undertaken in our own country. You know the saying - the only thing necessary for the spread of evil is for good men (and women) to do nothing.
You can call on men till the cows come home, with or without my help, and it ain't gonna happen. I'd rather be effective.
I personally think the abolitionists do more to weaken our ability to formulate creative solutions than they weaken the abortionists.
Ummm....IQ, earnings, influence. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a amoral is synonymous with primitive.
As for the first part: for now. You don't seem to want to face the fact that pro-lifers failed. As for the second part: that is strictly speculation on your part. I submit the shift towards more appreciation for morals can be attributed to the number of people who have "rode the tiger" and got bit.
I understand spouting platitudes makes you feel better, but please don't expect me to take them seriously.
Like the men and women of Germany, most of whom hid behind their doors while Jews were being led away, we have allowed a holocaust against the unborn to be undertaken in our own country. You know the saying - the only thing necessary for the spread of evil is for good men (and women) to do nothing.
Then I invite you to take up arms and put a stop to the evil. Isn't that what those hiding Germans should have done?
And don't give me this "we" crap. I was on the pro-life picket line 20 years ago bub. Everytime we came up with something effective, the pro-abortionists got it made illegal. You can continue to bark at the moon, but I'm not.
I see no reason to think our recent political successes are a result of doing the same thing we've always done.
I'm still waiting for and answer to this question.
I commend to you the story of the unrighteous judge.
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.