Posted on 01/06/2009 11:07:55 AM PST by annalex
"Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the Senate, "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion....it is plain experimental evidence."
Dr.Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added, "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."
Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified, "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty.....is not a human being."
The government restricts choices all the time. Do you have a choice to steal, to drive drunk, slander other people? Every abortion kills a person who is a unique individual. That is a proven medical and scientific fact. Simply calling something a personal "choice" does not make it right. It is a personal decision to write bad checks, but it is still wrong.
Well, killing your own child should be a tough decision. If a man were thinking of killing his 10 year old daughter to collect on an insurance policy, it is logical to assume that it would be a tough decision for him to make. But that does not mean it should be legal.
Can you imagine a man on trial for killing his five year old saying, "The government has no right to force me to have a child". Legally protecting the lives of the unborn has nothing to do with forcing a woman to have a child. Once a woman is pregnant, she has already brought a child into the world; she is already a mother.
First, telling doctors they can not kill someone is not practicing medicine; it is common decency. Second, the medical profession and drug industry are the most highly regulated businesses in America . The glaring exception is the abortion industry which is virtually unregulated. A school nurse can't give a child an aspirin without her parents' permission. But she can take her to get an abortion without her parents ever knowing.
The baby inside her mother is a separate individual from her mother with her own genetic code, blood type, fingerprints, brain, beating heart, nervous system. The child in the womb feels pain independent from her mother, can be awake while she is asleep, can be healthy while her mother is sick. The baby in the womb is her own person.
By the way, the government does regulate some things we can do with our own bodies. We can't sell our bodies for sex, sell our organs to people in need of transplants, or put certain drugs into our bodies.
This is the abortion industry's sleazy way of pitting mothers against their own children. Once a woman has conceived a child, she has brought a new life into the world who is as fully human as she is. The right to life does not depend on size or age but on being a human person. Does a toddler have a greater right to live than an infant? A teenager more of a right to life than a toddler? Does a strong, intelligent adult deserve to have more rights than a handicapped child? If the billion dollar abortion industry would stop pitting women against their own children and begin to show even a little compassion for the child in the womb, countless women would be saved from a lifetime of pain and regret. And countless children would be saved from death.
People with disabilities are no less human than any other people. They have the same right to life as a healthy person. Can you imagine a drunk driver who kills a handicapped child saying he should be let off the hook because the "quality of life" of the child he killed was not up to his standards? Do you really feel qualified to determine the quality of life of another person and then decide if he should live or die? That is exactly what you are doing if you say handicapped children should be aborted.
Poverty is no excuse for killing children. What if a woman had four kids and lost her job? Does this give her the right to drown two of them? To suggest that someone's right to life can be denied because of his financial status is disgusting. The "poverty deserves death" idea of the abortion industry is another one of its sleazy strategies. Pro-lifers have opened well over 3000 help centers for mothers in need. The abortion industry has opened zero; it just makes billions from killing the children of the poor.
They are very common. Just one example is abortionist George Tiller who has admitted to killing OVER 10,000 babies between 24 and 36 weeks. Abortionist Martin Haskell has admitted to committing so many late term abortions, he can't remember the number. Life Dynamics has both of these doctors admitting these statements on audio tape.
No modern medical, scientific or biology text says that life begins at any other time other than conception. Life is a continuum for the moment of conception until death. We have different names for the stages of life: zygote, fetus, infant, toddled, teenager, adult, middle ager, elderly, but they are ALL STAGES OF HUMAN LIFE. Can a woman decide that her child in not fully human until she can walk on her own? Would it be OK for her to kill her child if this is what she believed? It is a proven medical and scientific fact that life begins at conception. All of your genetic material was present at the moment of conception; nothing was added later. A person is a person no matter how small.
The word "fetus" simply describes a stage of development of human life. When the person moves from the inside to the outside of the womb, it is called by a different name such as infant or newborn despite the biological fact that fundamentally, no change has taken place. As time goes on, the person will be called by different names, but at no stage is she more or less human. When they talk about a child in the womb whom they do NOT intend to kill, even pro-choice people call her a baby. But if they intend to kill her, they attempt to dehumanize her by calling her a "product of conception", "a clump of cells", or "a potential life." Have you ever heard someone say, "My clump of cells just moved", or "My product of conception just kicked"? Or has a couple ever looked at an ultrasound of their baby in the womb and said, "Look! You can see the potential life's heart beating and sucking her thumb"? Nothing is created at birth. It is a person who comes out of her mother. And it is a person who is killed in every abortion.
The philosophy that it's acceptable to kill certain completely innocent human beings in order to accomplish social objectives is not only the very definition of evil, it's irrational and ineffective. In America's case we are talking about a country of affluence that kills over 3000 children a day, mostly for convenience. The number of children in America who would one day starve to death for all practical purposes is zero. To kill millions of children to keep a tiny fraction of them from being hungry is lunacy.
The children in the world who are starving to death are almost exclusively in third-world nations where repressive regimes cause pain and destruction through corruption and political disputes. It is a well-proven fact that people do not starve to death because of overpopulation or because there is not enough food in the world. The earth produces more than enough food to feed every man, woman, and child. Killing children through abortion won't overthrow a totalitarian regime; it won't allow free enterprise in other countries. It won't improve farming techniques, won't build roads, won't improve food distribution systems. Using abortion as a solution to poverty does allow nations and individuals to pass the buck onto the poor and frees them from their responsibility to help those in need and reinforces a "death-as-a-solution" philosophy that just leads to more poverty and broken lives.
There are over 3000 free crisis pregnancy centers in the United States funded and staffed entirely by pro-life people. Each provides some or all of the following: friendship, counseling, free sonograms, free room and board, free clothing, free baby items, medical services, assistance for other children, post-natal instruction, job placement services, legal counseling, adoptions, help for moms to continue their education, post-abortion counseling, and many other free services. On the other hand the billion dollar abortion industry offers only one choice: a dead baby. Of the over 3000 crisis pregnancy centers in the United States, not one is funded or operated by the "pro-choice" crowd. I guess they offer only one "choice".
In our city we have wonderful Pregnancy Care Centers as well as Catholic Social Services and Lutheran Ministries, all of which provide real help for moms. But above and beyond that, the pro-life people who pray at the abortion clinic will hold a baby shower for any mother who chooses life for her baby. But the help does not stop there. They are in it for the long run. The pro-lifers are willing to help mothers find apartments, jobs, schools. We keep in touch with any of the mothers who would like us to do so and help in any way we can, even years after they have given birth. WHY? Because these mothers who choose life deserve our love and support, but even more than that, they become like family to us. Sometime you should try holding a baby who was saved from abortion, and see if you could ever believe in "choice".
The billion dollar abortion industry and "pro-choice" mindset say pro-lifers don't help women in need. This is a flat out lie. Maybe someone should ask those who make millions from abortion what they do to help society besides kill children.
Do you really want to suggest we eliminate some child abuse that might occur sometime in the future by executing the potential victims today? That makes about as much sense as eradicating wife-beating by killing all married women. Of course, this type of question completely ignores the fact that abortion itself is the ultimate example of child abuse. Since abortion was made legal in 1973, we have killed children by the tens of millions, yet child abuse has increased dramatically. According the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, in 1973 there were 167,000 cases of child abuse reported in the U.S. In 2002 they reported 1,694,756 child abuse investigations in the U.S. If legal abortion is going to reduce the number of unwanted and abused children by, wel l, reducing the number of children, when is this going to happen? We have killed close to 50 million children in the U.S. since 1973. How many more children do we have to kill before this plan begins to work?
Rape and incest are hideous crimes; people who commit them should be punished. Nevertheless, a baby who results from rape or incest is an innocent human being with the same right to life as everyone else. Two wrongs don't make a right. Why should we add the crime of murder to these other crimes? We should not kill a child for the sins of his father. Killing an innocent human being is never justifiable.
A person does not have to be especially religious to say it's wrong to kill a child any more than you have to be religious to say it is wrong to steal money. In reality abortion is a civil and human rights issue. Just because so many people are motivated by their religious beliefs to oppose the killing of children through abortion does not make it a religious issue. If the argument is that abortion should be off limits to the law because people with religious beliefs oppose it, shouldn't everything in the Ten Commandments be off limits to the law?
The vast majority of behaviors that are immoral and illegal in America today are not mentioned in the Bible. Jesus did not give us a laundry list of every offense and sin against God. The Bible and Jesus didn't mention stock manipulation or child pornography, but it is safe to conclude that Jesus spoke against theft and lust.
The Bible and Jesus repeatedly warns against doing harm to children, shedding innocent blood, committing murder, etc. The Bible and Jesus are also perfectly clear that God is the Author and Originator of all life from the moment of conception. Both in the Old and the New Testaments. there is never a distinction between born and unborn people, nor is there any different language used to describe them. The unborn child is always refereed to in the exact same manner as the born child. Logically, we have no choice but to accept the fact that God views them as the same and intends for us to treat them in the same way.
Psalm 139: 13. You it was who fashioned my inward parts; You knitted me together in my mother's womb.
Luke 1: 15. And he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.
Luke 1: 41. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb.
Isaiah 49: 1. The Lord called me before I was born, He named me from my mother's womb.
Genesis 25:22. The children pressed on each other in the womb.
Jeremiah 1: 5. Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.
Psalm 22:10. From my mother's womb you have been my God. Hosea 12: 3. Even in the womb Jacob supplanted his brother.
Mt 25: 40. "...Truly I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethern, you did it to me." Mt 19: 17. "...If you would enter life, keep the commandments."
Exodus 20: 13. "YOU SHALL NOT KILL." 20. Jesus said: "...Truly I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethern, you did it to me." (Matthew 25:40)
ABORTION IS THE KILLING OF A PERSON WHO IS COMPLETELY LOVED BY GOD, HAS AN IMMORTAL SOUL, AND IS OUR SISTER OR BROTHER.
The mothers and doctors are equally guilty. The doctors are similar to hitmen, and the mothers are similar to people who hire hitmen.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Years ago, politicians were described as "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion." "Pro-choice" was invented by the abortion industry and enthusiastically promoted by the DemonRats and their friends in the MSM.
If someone tells me they are "pro-choice," I say, "Choice with regard to what?" Make them say the word "abortion."
Ask a totalitarian government to enforce any law, no matter how sensible, and the outcome will be ugly.
It was actually worse that what you describe; not only the wombs of women, but the entire human beings of both sexes were enslaved to the service of the government, and not only in Romania.
Ectopic pregnancy can be successful. It typically is not. This is a pure, clear case of sacrificing the life of the mother as well as the child from a profoundly flawed pregnancy.
There are terrible choices that sometimes must be made. Inconveience is not a terrible choice.
Except that here’s the thing.
I can see the legal argument and I don’t think legally a woman would ever be forced to carry to term in that situation.
But.
If a fetus is truly a person, then it’s still blood on her hands. Will killing the child undo the crime that’s been done to her? Absolutely not, nothing will. Abortion can be a traumatic experience and this culture tends to push for abortion in the case of rape. Rape often comes with a feeling of guilt; so does abortion unless you are 100% sure that it’s not murder. Even then people still experience shadows of guilt. With the rape, the guilt is not deserved at all, but to compound that with guilt from abortion in a culture where that act is usually considered murder, and that trauma can be dragged out for years and years. It’s not like killing a rapist, because that’s self defense; the fetus was innocent and the blame psychologically reverts back to be divided between the victim and the rapist, and ultimately the victim for going through with it.
All in all, it seems that the readiness to push abortion in rape cases is a damaging thing. If it will truly affect her health so badly, that falls under health of the mother, doesn’t it? If not, would temporary suffering outweigh the life of another individual, especially since abortion is not guaranteed to be less damaging than childbirth?
Perhaps.
I could instead suggest that the pro-life movement's uncompromising hostility to any justification for abortion in cases of rape or incest has, on balance, been an asset to the self styled "pro-choice" movement for decades.
80 percent of Americans oppose 95 percent of abortions - it's the dilemma of that last five percent that has maintained the status quo ever since Roe.
Except that the entire pro-life movement does not say “no in case of rape or incest.” A good portion wants to allow it. It’s a very divisive issue internally, but I wouldn’t even say most anti-abortion people are against an exception for rape and incest based on statistics, so I’d hardly say they have uncompromising hostility to any justification of rape or incest. Or any hostility at all. Most pro-life people are very understanding of it, but they still disagree.
When you think about it, singling out rape is really unsympathetic to other women who abort. I know rape is horrific, but the pro-choice argument is that abortion is not an easy choice. I agree with them, it’s not an easy choice. So what makes the struggles of most of the women who abort less important than those of a rape victim? Why set up a block for them and not the rape victim without any physiological reason?
The rape argument is an emotional appeal. Very few abortions are for rape victims and it puts rape victims on a pedestal.
So perhaps it’s an asset in that they’re able to use it to further exploit victims, but I honestly don’t want any part in that.
That's really where the rubber meets the road.
I would support that platform, and I believe that at least two thirds of Americans would as well.
Absolutely. While I would prefer to save all people, it’s just pragmatic to save 95% as opposed to 0%, especially since with that 95% protected, that works to help solidify public opinion on the value of the unborn. Meanwhile, I would continue to support programs that got to the root of why women aborted, instead of focusing solely on legislation, to help women choose life, even in that last 3% from rape cases. That leaves what, 1-2% done in cases of life endangerment, which medical technology will hopefully rectify in my lifetime.
Good point on the rape issue. I would venture that most rape victims are given the Plan B pill after the rape to prevent the need for an abortion, therefore rendering that arugment pretty much null.
While I still believe that preventing a fertilized egg from implanting is still abortion, I venture the majority populice would have much less problem with this than an actual abortion in the case of rape or incest.
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.