On Jan. 22, abortion rights activists will be marking the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in the name of a woman's right to choose. Pro-life supporters, meanwhile, will be speaking on behalf of the most vulnerable and weakest members of society under their own "holiday" on Sunday: National Sanctity of Human Life Day.
Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
CP HOME
> Society > Family issues
Thousands Give Voice to the Unborn, Hope to Moms
By
Lawrence Jones
Christian Post Reporter
Sun, Jan. 20 2008 10:20 AM EST
[-] Text [+]
love wins
Re:maranatha7593, GMG, and myself had a very firey debate with Citizen about the sin of abortion. It is worth the read.
The discussion with Citizen was on Monday night in case you are interested.
love wins
I am 100% pro-life. I do not approve of taking the life of an unborn child at any stage of gestation. To do so would be murder. I don't even approve of having fertility clinics.
maranatha7593, GMG, and myself had a very firey debate with Citizen about the sin of abortion. It is worth the read.
star2 .. how old does a "fetus" have to be to be "considered" a baby?? Maybe we should be able to kill little children up to 2 years of age because they're not fully developed either?? This baby has its own set of DNA, its own blood type, its own heart, eyes, mouth, feet, and hands.. he/she needs food, and shelter from its mother while he/she is in the womb, and when this baby is born he/she needs food and shelter.. no different from when its in the womb!!! Same basic needs!! Although, in one scenario there's an open season on its very life!! What should be the SAFEST place in this babies life, is its most dangerous place-in the womb.. Millions of babies have been put to the grave inside of their own mothers.. thats sooo sooo sad!
Defend the right to life, Support Dr. Ron Paul now!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/
Aren't you sick of politicians using this as a political football while babies die?! I'm tired of hearing how "conservative" and "prolife" they are UNTIL they take the office! Check Rep. Paul's 10-term record - he is an honest man.
Also check YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXZpuIXEzWk
Ron Paul speaks at the National Right to Life Convention
also WWW.PRAYFORPAUL.COM cut & paste & share these links, God Bless you all.
http://www.christiansforronpaul.com/
http://prayforpaul.com/
maranatha7593
People who have come to support Dr. Paul do so, not because of the type of sin they are under but because he speaks truth in the face of great obstacles. He stands for a return to constitutionally-defined, limited government, sound money, respect for life and liberty - ALL life, a strong national defense, no nation-building, etc. Go to his site and read his "issues" articles.
For 10 terms, he has stood almost entirely alone in the Congress for these principles, voting against anything that is unconstitutional while our other "representatives" mock and ridicule him. He stands on Christ's power, believing in His truth and disregarding what the world says is popular. His consistent message of freedom is appealing to many in these last days.
star2, thank you for the kind (and TRUE) words. But, I must give credit where credit is due. It was GMG who made those comments. I just "amen-ed" them. So, here's the correction: :-)
GMG said to you, "Abortion also deals with human life. Abortion demeans the meaning of life, the importance of life, inures us to the thought of life having value."
These comments that you made to MuggleBorn only goes to prove that GMG is right in what s/he says.
Dagny, I agree with you about abortion. Can you explain to me why prostitutes are so strongly wanting Ron Paul to be elected?
For 35 years, millions of innocents have been being killed.
For 35 years our elected officials have claimed to be prolife and promised to "work on it"
Roe v Wade has stood for 35 years because no one has challenged the Constitutionality of the decision - they talk the talk....
For 35 years, Dr. Ron Paul has been delivering babies (more than 4,000)
As a confressman he has put forth legislation that DIRECTLY challenges the constitutionality of ROE v WADE, returning control to the States as the Founders designed. The very instant that occurs, the voices for the unborn can be heard once more!
Will there remain any States that allow abortion? Possibly - if we aren't effective enough, it's possible, however returning the abortion issue to the State level means it will no longer be legal in all of them! How many lives could have been saved if Ron Paul's legislation had been backed long ago??
For what he believes I hope that you and others will go to:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/
Aren't you sick of politicians using this as a political football while babies die?! I'm tired of hearing how "conservative" and "prolife" they are UNTIL they take the office! Check Rep. Paul's 10-term record - he is an honest man.
Also check YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXZpuIXEzWk
Ron Paul speaks at the National Right to Life Convention
Citizen
Re:muggleborn: Tell me, how hard do you have to work to maintain your shocked, SHOCKED outrage about those pictures of aborted fetuses (which aren't persons) after, no doubt, waving them around for months and years? I understand that you all have plastic models fetuses, too. When no one's around, do you ever take them out and play with them like action figures?
maranatha7593 said to you, "Abortion also deals with human life. Abortion demeans the meaning of life, the importance of life, inures us to the thought of life having value."
These comments that you made to MuggleBorn only goes to prove that maranatha7593 is right in what she says.
You have a sin sick mind.
Oh. Hey, citizen. It must've taken you at least a good half-hour to come up with THAT gem. Congratulations.
So, we'll replace comics & toys for Neil Gaiman books. But I guess the rest of it was right on the money.
"gothic Newbury Comics Collectibles"? No idea what those are, but apparently you do. Guess I know where to go if I ever need dork lessons. Apparently I've met the master.
Citizen.
First, you can't judge a person's mood by the emoticons they use. The smile in that context was more of a reflex hysteria at your absurdity.
What I find more shocking than anything is your complete and utter denial. You could probably perform an abortion and not believe what you were seeing right in front of you. I wouldn't be surprised if you deny the Holocaust, too. Or is it just one of those "Not in this country" contentions.
You live in a fantasy world. Someone needs to invent a new word for how ridiculous you are. The only people who might be more absurd are 911 conspiracy theorists, and flat-earthers (who are mostly athients BTW ... weird!)
I guess it's my turn to be presumptuous, now.
Why don't you just log off your computer and recline back on the futon in your apartment in the basement of your parents house, and watch your box set of Star Trek TNG. Maybe over a can of Jolt and some Doritos you can laugh about how Christians lie to themselves and waste their lives believing in something that can't be proven, while you sit and admire your gothic Newbury Comics collectibles and replica posters of 'Nosferatu' and 'Plan 9 From Outer Space'. Maybe you'll get a good 35 more years or so out of them, and at the end of it all, you can relish in the fact that you lived a good life by providing yourself with frivolous luxuries.
Later, "dude".
See what I mean? Phony outrage, phony self-righteousness. You can turn it on and off like a light switch. I'm actually somewhat impressed...have you ever thought of getting into acting?
And now we know. Thanks for the confirmation, citizen.
muggleborn: Tell me, how hard do you have to work to maintain your shocked, SHOCKED outrage about those pictures of aborted fetuses (which aren't persons) after, no doubt, waving them around for months and years? I understand that you all have plastic models fetuses, too. When no one's around, do you ever take them out and play with them like action figures? Seriously, grow up, and lose the phony self-righteousness.
maranatha7593
Amen.
On this 35th anniversary of the beginning of the modern American holocaust, I pray that God will have mercy on our land and not allow us to reap what we have sown. I pray that all Americans, from small to great, from the lowliest worker to the highest-ranking leaders, will receive the revelation from God's Word that the blood of these innocents cries out to Him, and He hears their cries. I pray that we will obey His Word in Proverbs 29 by speaking out on behalf of these who cannot speak for themselves.
May we who are called by His name truly humble ourselves, pray, seek His face, and turn from our wicked ways, knowing as we do so that He has promised to hear from Heaven, forgive our sin, and heal our land. In the mighty, precious, Holy Name of Jesus - Amen.
Citizen,
The only thing that star2 conceded to is that your arguments are all based on the fallible logic of a group of people whose decisions have no absolute authority and are relative to your precious zeitgeist that hold so dear, which I might add, is rendered culturally and temporally by a group of people who have no absolute authority. You cling to it like the baby chimp in the lab who clings to its wire mesh mother.
You’ve been asked to visit these links. You’ve mentioned nothing about them. Until you look at the photos and tell us in your own words, what they are of, ALL your arguments, and even your convictions lack ANY sort of credibility.
Visit the links:
PHOTOS of aborted human fetuses retrieved from a dumpster:
http://priestsforlife.org/resources/monica/mm2.htm
PHOTOS of 1st trimester abortions:
http://priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/index.htm
PHOTOS of 2nd trimester abortions:
http://priestsforlife.org/resources/dc/index.htm
PHOTOS of late term abortions:
http://priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/index.htm
Look at the photos. WHAT ARE THEY? I think we can agree they’re not blastocysts. DON’T give us the run-around. DON’T give back contemptuous remarks, like “They’re your way of trying to do this or that”. WHAT ARE THEY? Give us a noun (with optional adjectives), describing what you see.
Look at them and tell us they’re not persons. At least then, we’ll know for sure what sort of “person” you are.
GMG said, "Do we ever make bad laws, laws that are really made because we find them modern, convenient, useful and justifiable simply because it's what we want to do? Like slavery?
Abortion is like that. Abortion also deals with human life. Abortion demeans the meaning of life, the importance of life, inures us to the thought of life having value. Our society is wrong. And we have no real excuses. If ever we had the means to prevent pregnancy it is in our modern age, and yet we are still acting like immature kids who don't want to face the consequences of our choices. We don't want to have to "give up" our freedom on any plane. How sad we are."
Well said! Bravo!
Citizen I find it amazing; There are other Atheist website but you remain here on a Christian site.
Now you aren't aguring for spiritual enlightenment from God. But you disagree with the Gospel and a worldly view. God ask the devil "from where do you come?" Satan said "from going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it."
So I see you have considered the Children of God. You are looking to see whom you can devour with your world ideas.
By the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I pray my brothers and sisters that you stand up against his world ways. We are not of the world and follow not of the things in it. Amen.
Citizen
Re:star2: By name-calling, you really mean you concede. I understand. Good night!
I didn't call you a name. If I did I would have called you a "fool". A "fool" is a noun. I said you were foolish. The statements you make are foolish. "foolish" is an adjective that is describing your thoughts/arguments.
No, I don't concede. You conclusion is wrong here my friend.
star2: By name-calling, you really mean you concede. I understand. Good night!
Citizen
Re:If you are consistent supporters of freedom of conscience,
I never said I was. I said that the unborn child is a human being and to take its life thru an abortion is murder. Once a woman becomes pregnant she loses her right to kill her unborn child.
Citizen
Your foolish. It is pointless to carry on a debate with you anymore.
Citizen
Good night.
star2: Oh, I see. So its really about the pregnant woman, and the choices she makes. It isn't really about the potential person at all, since you have no problem with that potential being ended, if it wasn't the woman's choice. Or is it the problems with the fetus that make you ok with it? The "congenital defects" I think you said. Suppose a fetus has a disease that will cause it to die in screaming agony a few days or weeks after its born. Should the state intervene to stop the woman choosing to spare that agony? What if the family has no money for another child, and so the child would grow up impoverished, disadvantaged, and worst of all, unwanted. Should the state intervene and tell the woman, you cannot spare yourself and the potential child that agony? We are talking about freedom of conscience here, the same freedom of conscience that keeps the state from tell you that you must have an abortion, or you must worship god this way or that.
If you are consistent supporters of freedom of conscience, you cannot support the state denying another woman her right to freedom of conscience when it comes to choosing whether or not to continue a pregnancy, within the constraints of Roe v. Wade.
GMG-good night. I'm glad you stayed to be a part of our debate.
Do we ever make bad laws, laws that are really made because we find them modern, convenient, useful and justifiable simply because it's what we want to do? Like slavery?
Abortion is like that. Abortion also deals with human life. Abortion demeans the meaning of life, the importance of life, inures us to the thought of life having value. Our society is wrong. And we have no real excuses. If ever we had the means to prevent pregnancy it is in our modern age, and yet we are still acting like immature kids who don't want to face the consequences of our choices. We don't want to have to "give up" our freedom on any plane. How sad we are.
Goodnight everyone, time for me to call it a night. God bless.
Citizen
The degradation of our genetic pool began when man (Adam) decided to rebel against God. Our genetic pool has degraded over the thousands of years of man's existence. If things go wrong in the development of an unborn child, the mother had nothing to do with it. However, abortion of an unborn child is premeditated. You are wanting to compare apples with oranges.
GMG: No I'm not, but I fully support your right not to have abortions, just as I support your right to have them within the constraints of Roe v. Wade.
Citizen:
I'll restate it again. God Word doesn't play much of a role in our constitution. Yes, it is secular and that is why we are in the pitiful state we are in.
star2: Oh, so even spontaneous abortion is humankind's fault (because it's the result of "sin") well, now I'm really confused, because you don't seem to blame humankind enough to criminalize spontaneous abortion, even though you say it results from human choice the same way other kinds of abortion do.
No on can speak for everyone, of course. All I can speak for is that I am a woman, I have talked with many women, I am a nurse, I have lost a child, and I know for a certainity that many have rued that sort of decision afterwards. We make many decisions based on what we find logically balanced in view of the circumstance, only to realize later that we failed to consider the whole picture. A baby is not a car, a house, a job, a horse, a fence, a whim. And when you're not holding it in your arms it seems like nothing "actual" at the moment. And then it's gone, by your choice alone, and the reality hits home. And suddenly there's no going back. It wasn't a car, a horse, etc. etc. It was a baby. You're not a woman are you?
Citizen
Re:star2: oh really? I thought according to you christians, your god created everything natural. Doesn't that mean your god created spontaneous abortion too? Doesn't that mean that it was his will that those happen?
When God created everything He created it perfect. Then man decided to rebel against God and sin entered into the world.
The Word of God say that the soul that sinneth it shall surely die. Sin brings death. That death is in every area of our life. Your sins tonight in this debate had degraded or brought death to your ability to debate at a quality level. Our sin has corrupted our genetic pool. This corruption sometimes affects our physical development. People get diseases all the time because of faulty genetic makeup. It can happen to the unborn child as well.
star2: Well, good, at least you can recognize that the constitution is a secular document. If you want to try to amend the constitution to be more "biblical",(according to your standards of what's "biblical") you certainly have the right to try.
GMG: No sarcasm involved. I really do want you all to address the seeming contradiction between your feelings towards some kinds of abortion versus other kinds. It seems like you are being very inconsistent.
GMG: Doesn't the no-longer-pregnant woman in question know what she's feeling better than you do? Is it your place to make self-serving assumptions about how "most women" feel?
It was addressed to me, with a seemingly sarcastic reference to God's will. did I misunderstand?
Citizen
Re:star2: Moreover, since when did the bible become the basis of our laws instead of the constitution? And what evidence do you have that there is a god, much less that the bible gets it right? You see the problem with legislating based on the bible?
God Word doesn't play much of a role in our constitution. That is why we are in the pitiful state we are in.
star2: oh really? I thought according to you christians, your god created everything natural. Doesn't that mean your god created spontaneous abortion too? Doesn't that mean that it was his will that those happen?
A woman tells herself she is relieved, and reminds herself of all the reasons she should be. I suppose there is a rare woman that actually convinces herself. But that woman is indeed rare.
There are many reasons to think you want an abortion, and many reasons and much time to rue the choices afterwards.
GMG: What put-downs? star2 mentioned god saying abortion was wrong, so I asked about spontaneous abortions, and whether he or she though that his or her god was involved in that?
Citizen
Re: "Seems god is the biggest abortionist of them all."
May God forgive you of your blasphemist remarks.
Re:But either way, what does god have to say about all the natural abortions, which as GMG or marantha pointed out, we call miscarriages.
Miscarriages are natural. Things go wrong and the baby dies. God does not play a role in that any more than He plays a role in you getting sick.
GMG: I agree, she does feel a sense of loss if she wanted the child. If she did not, I imagine she'd be relieved. The same range of emotions are felt when the decision is made to have an abortion.
Is this conversation going from exchange of ideas and viewpoints to put-downs?
GMG: well what does that matter? It's still developing life, or a "nascent child" or a "baby" or whatever other loaded term you want to through around right? Aren't you going to attribute those spontaneous abortions to "god's will?" Doesn't that mean that your god wanted those abortions to happen, or even made them happen?
A woman's sense of loss over a miscarriage is very real. And the longer she carries that baby, the more loss it entails. Don't ever think for a moment that loss, whether by choice or not, doesn't have a lasting impact.
GMG: I'd feel about as bad as I do about all the miscarriages that happen naturally everyday. Which is to say, nowhere near as bad as if an actual born person was murdered.
Citizen
Those "spontaneous abortions" are due to congenital abnormalities, failures to implant properly, etc. Physical reasons for inability to develop, not man's choice.
star2: Moreover, since when did the bible become the basis of our laws instead of the constitution? And what evidence do you have that there is a god, much less that the bible gets it right? You see the problem with legislating based on the bible?
Star - tried that, didn't work :-(
star2: really? god says its wrong? I don't remember that in the bible. But either way, what does god have to say about all the natural abortions, which as GMG or marantha pointed out, we call miscarriages. Seems god is the biggest abortionist of them all.
GMG
If you are still here try the copy and paste method. That is what I have been doing. It works after I have been rejected.
star2: And I'll repeat what I said which was that sperm and egg are both alive before conception, so in what sense can an embryo or fetus be said to be "new life"? What does it matter whether a heart is beating, if it can't feel pain? For that matter, we regularly kill all manner of beings that are alive and can feel pain, so unless you are advocating for banning the slaughter of animals, you can't even use the beginning of the ability to feel pain, and be consistent. Why should that it has some vague resemblence to something that might become a human person, when it has all the pain feeling ability and consciousness of the pig that gave you the bacon you ate for breakfast? You aren't being very consistent here.
Well, I can't get CP to accept my post, so after 5 tries I'm giving up!! Maybe I'll try again tomorrow after my computer's cooled down? haha
Keep on with the good fight Star & Maranatha =) But I think you, Citizen, will continue to see that baby as a bit of protoplasm no matter what anybody says. Ever looked into the eyes of your child/niece/brother and imagined "it" as something aborted, something no longer in your life, because it was killed? Or rather, because someone who had a right to make a "choice", after-the-fact, denied further existence to that one you love? What does that do to your modern, sophisticated, knowledgable legalese? Just wondering.
Citizen
Re:star2: Yes, and now I am asking for your opinion again: why doesn't the anti-choice movement protest fertility clinics, and try to get them outlawed? Seems inconsist, if you all really believe what you are saying.
I only speak for myself. Everyone has an opinion. No two people have the same exact opinion as the next person on every detail of an issue. Not every liberal agree on every point nor does every conservative agree on every point.
Besides all that God is the Lawmaker and Judge on all issues of life. He decides what is right and what is wrong. God says it is wrong. Any nation who goes against the preordained laws of God will suffer the consequences.
Citizen
The court got it wrong when they use viability as a criteria in determining if it is OK to kill an unborn child.
Like maranatha7593 said "By the time the average woman knows she is pregnant, the child's heart is already beating and it's past the embryo stage"
We are talking about a human being. I'll restate what I said previously in case you didn't read it:
Once a woman creates a new life in her womb she loses her right to decide if she wants to let it live. That new life is a human being. Did you see the photos of the aborted babies from every stage of gestation that was on the website MuggleBorn gave? Did you see what the fetus looked like before it was even 3 months old? The fetus had a head with 2 eyes and a mouth. It has a torso with 2 arms and 2 legs. Even its genitalia (it was a male) was formed. That, my dear friend, is not a clump of tissue, it is a human being.
Look at the photos. Can you not see that that is a human being? The medical profession has already proved that the aborted baby feels pain when it is in the process of being killed.
star2: Yes, and now I am asking for your opinion again: why doesn't the anti-choice movement protest fertility clinics, and try to get them outlawed? Seems inconsist, if you all really believe what you are saying.
Maranatha: Good, then we can agree that laws concerning the freedom to procreate or not should be subject to the highest level of judicial scrutiny. After all the freedom to choose not to procreate, is just the flip side to the freedom to choose to do it. If you agree with all of that, then congratulations: You just agreed with the fundamental holding of Roe v. Wade. The precedent I mentioned established that when a right is protected by substantive due process, the state must have a compelling interest to regulate it, and narrowly tailor the means. Roe just applied all that to the freedom to procreate or not. You know, technically speaking, sperm are alive, it seems to me pretty arbitrary to talk about life "beginning at conception" since the sperm and egg are alive before then. The question is not whether or not its "alive" the question is whether its a "person" within the meaning of the constitution
Roe v. Wade supports the criminalization of killing newborns thereafter because newborns, by definition, are post-viability, and moreover, a newborn is definitely a "person" within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment. so Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with whatever you are talking about with children who are two, three years olld.
Out of curiosity, have you ever read Roe v. Wade?
Citzen
Re: However, if I had any control over the law, I would not allow for an embryo or a fetus to be created.
I mean by that, that I would not allowed an embryo to be created outside of a mother's womb. Again, I would not allow fertility clinics to exist. We don't have any need for them.
Re:star2: Why doesn't the anti-choice movement loudly agitate for the end of fertility clinics? Why aren't there bills introduced by anti-choice representatives and senators to ban fertility clinics?
You asked for my opinion. So I opined.
Dr. Nathanson has admitted that one of the methods of propoganda they employed to make abortion seem less distasteful and more acceptable to the American public was the inflated figures of women dying from back-alley abortions. The true figures were FAR less than they reported as fact. Another lie which needs to be rectified.
Citzen
Re: star2: So you would have ruled an embryo, or a fetus, a "person" within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment (so that life, liberty or property could not be taken from it without due process)?
If an embryo or a fetus is created, then yes, I would rule that it is a person with within the meaning of the 14th amendment.
However, if I had any control over the law, I would not allow for an embryo or a fetus to be created.
Citizen, you are 100% wrong again. I absolutely do not believe that anyone should be forced to have abortions as in China, and you already knew that before you tried to twist my words.
Roe v. Wade was indeed rife with misrepresentations and outright lies, and the 'precedent' you mentioned did not allow or provide for the killing of nascent children.
As I'm sure you already know, nascent children are embryos for a very short time. By the time the average woman knows she is pregnant, the child's heart is already beating and it's past the embryo stage. Even so, abortion at any stage is the taking of an innocent life because it stops the development of that child as surely as the woman in TX stopped the development of her children when she drowned them all and the man in LA stopped the development of his children when he threw them off the bridge.
I realize these truths are extremely distasteful to those who want to propogate the myth of 'victim-less' abortions, but they are true, nonetheless. And just one horrific result of the legalized killing of nascent children has been the great increase in the parallel slaughter of children who are developing into adults.
star2: Why doesn't the anti-choice movement loudly agitate for the end of fertility clinics? Why aren't there bills introduced by anti-choice representatives and senators to ban fertility clinics?
Maranatha: on the contrary, Roe was based on solid precedent. Griswold v. Connecticut, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Meyer v. Nebraska...Meyer was decided in 1923! This wasn't judges on a rampage, this was judges respecting the fundamental principle of stare decisis! Roe held that the decision whether to procreate or not was protected by substantive due process, a principle you would concede readily if the law was forcing women to have abortions. The justices merely applied that fundamental social agreement to the side you disagree with. I just believe in freedom of conscience, so I don't think that the state should impinge on people's consciences like this. If you don't believe in freedom of conscience, there are other countries that might be more to your liking. Iran, North Korea, or China, for example.
It's certainly ending life, but if that life is not a "person" within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment, people are free to end it the same as they would end other kinds of life. It certainly is different, because while an embryo has potential to be a person, that is not the same thing as an actual person.
Your lecture on dilation and extraction is why, as a general rule, its only done in the last trimester for the mother's life or health.
People who say the mother's wishes should trump the potential person say that state shouldn't force the woman to use her body against her wishes until viabilty makes the potential person's interest outweighs that of the mother. Children after birth are after viability, so of course their interests trump the mother's at that point.
Citizen
I would not even allow a fertility clinic to exist. If a man and his wife want to have a baby and can't then all they have to do is turn to God and ask Him for one. This has happened plenty of times in the Bible. The miracles that He did back then He still can and does today. If they don't believe in God, then they can adopt a baby.
The only reason we have fertility clinics is because we are a godless nation.
Re:Would you push woman back into the back allies, to die of botched abortions by amateurs or because of unsanitary conditions?
If they choose to do that, then let them suffer the consequences. They don't need to get pregnant. They don't have to have sex. They don't have to yield to the desires of their flesh. People are humans not animals. Unlike animals people have ability to control their sexual passions.
star2: So you would have ruled an embryo, or a fetus, a "person" within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment (so that life, liberty or property could not be taken from it without due process)? That would mean that all those fertility clinics would have to be shut down, and their proprietors arrested for murder, because fertility processes result in the destruction of thousands upon thousands of embryos. Are you for outlawing fertility clinics, star2?
How would you enforce that law, star2? Would you have women and their doctors arrested? Would you make women register their pregnancies, so they couldn't hide it? How about invasive procedures to determine whether miscarriages are natural, or illegal abortions? Would you push woman back into the back allies, to die of botched abortions by amateurs or because of unsanitary conditions?
Citizen, you are 100% wrong. If any other case had been as rife with flaws as was Roe v. Wade, it would have been summarily repealed.
To imply that people are "forced to give birth" is to purposely avoid the fact that the huge majority of abortions are done to babies who were conceived BY CHOICE. And those people who pro-created those children need to take responsibility for them. Unfortunately, many people today have no conscience about this at all, as their consciences have been seared as a result of tolerating and espousing such brutality.
'Fetus' is just the Latin word for 'baby'. To kill a nascent, developing baby is no different than killing a baby who is developing into a toddler, a toddler who is developing into a child, etc. To stop its development is in fact killing it.
'Dilation and extraction' is a euphemism for the more realistic 'partial-birth' abortion, as the child's head is delivered from his/her mother's womb before it is killed. Only minutes separate the reality from an 'abortion' and a 'killing', legally.
People say, "The mother's wishes should trump the life of a child." But no one really believes that - otherwise, women who kill their developing children after birth would not be prosecuted for murder. It's time to quit lying and simply tell the truth.
Citizen
I don't care what the law says. The US Supreme Court got it wrong.
They now have sufficient evidence that the fetus is a human being that experiences pain when it is aborted. They know they ruled incorrectly on Roe v Wade. Chief Justice Rehmquest refused to hear any case that would overturn Roe v Wade because of the political fallout.
These justices are a bunch of cowards. They rather allow the murder of an unborn child than to stand up for what is right because of the potential problems it will cause with the pro-choice croud.
maranatha: We actually already discussed that case, and laws of that type, below.
Does anyone remember the Scott Peterson case, just a few years ago - the guy who was found guilty of murdering his pregnant wife? He was actually found guilty of a DOUBLE murder, as the death of the pre-born child was included. This is actually quite common in such cases. Our legal system is duplicitous and hypocritical in this regard. If it was wrong for him to kill his own child, it is wrong for ANYONE to do the same.
GMG: you are a little confused. I said that no court has recognized a fetus as a "person", which is a very important word. The federal (not states) constitution says that no state shalll deprive any "person" life, liberty, or property without due process of law. If the fetus is a potential human life, but not a "person" the constitution doesn't apply to it, and no due process is required before that life, or potential life, is taken. Just in the same way no due process is necessary before cows are killed for food. You say that freedom should be practiced prior to procreation, and that is certainly a valid viewpoint. But the question is not, what individual citizens choose to do, its "should the state enforce that view?" This is an issue of conscience, and you wouldn't want the state violating your conscience to say that you must have an abortion, any more than pro-choice people want their consciences violated by being forced to give birth. Therefore, citizens should be free to get an abortion, or not, until viability outweighs that freedom. In regard to dilation and extraction ( the proper medical term for the procedure you are referring to), that procedure can be banned after viability, with an exception for the life an health of the pregnant woman. Now, that's a medical decision, that means its up to the woman and her doctor, not third parties.
Maranatha: That's all very interesting, but irrelevant to the legal question of whether a woman's freedom to procreate or not is protected under substantive due process, which is the question Roe v. Wade decided.
For an outstanding expose' of the abortion industry from its early days, I recommend the book _Blood Money_ by Carol Everett, who at one time owned a chain of abortion clinics and whose own marriage disintegrated due to an abortion she had. An outstanding, honest book from the view of one who at one time not only espoused abortion but made her living off its victims.
I flagged my message below to add points I had inadvertently omitted:
Some interesting facts about Roe v. Wade:
1) NARAL (National Rights Abortion League) co-founder Dr. Bernard Nathanson has exposed in recent years the blatant lies and misinformation this group foisted upon unsuspecting Americans back in the '60s to pave the way for this ruling. Google his name and read all about it. (An aside: The very tactics they used to 'normalize' abortion, to garner its acceptance, have been adopted by those espousing the 'gay' agenda, as well.)
2) The very word 'abortion' was re-defined in order to 'sanitize' this issue and make it seem less horrific. In those days, the accepted meaning of 'abortion' was miscarriage. How things have changed! Such euphemisms have unfortunately become quite common in order to lessen the impact of such horrific things.
3) Americans were never given opportunity to vote on Roe v. Wade. Dr. Nathanson points out that had we had that opportunity, abortion would never have been legalized - hence the push to bring it before the Supreme Court with false information (which follows).
4) Roe v. Wade 'only' allowed 'abortion' during the first trimester of pregnancy - which was bad enough. But the slippery slope mentality brought us to where we are today, where babies are being slaughtered in the 9th month of pregnancy via partial-birth abortion.
5) Norma McCorvey, 'Jane Roe' of Roe v. Wade, has since admiitted that she lied in her testimony, that she was not raped at all. She has repented of her former actions and now fights vigorously against legalized abortion. One can google her name and get this info and more.
6) Roe v. Wade was enacted on the basis of a LIE.
We need to learn from all this, re-visit this issue, and address it as it should have been addressed then - with honesty.
Citizen
Re:the woman's interest in her own freedom to procreate or not outweighs the potential newborn.
Once a woman creates a new life in her womb she loses her right to decide if she wants to let it live. That new life is a human being. Did you see the photos of the aborted babies from every stage of gestation that was on the website MuggleBorn gave? Did you see what the fetus looked like before it was even 3 months old? The fetus had a head with 2 eyes and a mouth. It has a torso with 2 arms and 2 legs. Even its genitalia (it was a male) was formed. That, my dear friend, is not a clump of tissue, it is a human being.
To take the life of an innocent human being, whether it is in the mother's womb, or outside of it is murder. It is not the baby's fault that it was created. It is the fault of the man and woman who chose to have sexual relations. Even if the baby was conceived through rape, it is still a human being. To take its life is murder!
If a woman doesn't want to become pregnant, then she needs to obstain from sex.
Don't think that God doesn't hear the cry of those little ones as they are their bodies are burned to death or are torn apart. He recompenses the mother, the father, the doctor, and yes, even the nation for the error of their ways. He executes His vengeance on them. Each participant of the abortion experiences problems in their life. Don't think our nation isn't or won't experience the judgment of God on it because we execute our unborn children.
I know a woman in a church I went to who had an abortion. She was an alcoholic for 10 years. She was severly depressed. Her relationship with her husband was affected. She had other issues that plagued her for years and probably still do all because she was so self-centered about her potential for having breast cancer if she had a child at her age. That is what drove her to have an abortion. Her abortion took place right after the US Supreme Court ruled that it was OK to do so. Still to this day she suffers from it.
No medical problem of a mother requires an abortion. I watch Discovery-Health. They have many stories of sick women having babies. Those women trust God to see them thru it. He does and the mother, and the father are blessed because they chose to give life to their unborn child.
Citizen
There is a lot of controversy over the Roe vs Wade case, both in the area of the woman herself (was it pursued by her, or by others using her name?), and the court's bases of decision. But be that as it may, we still have the outcome of that case with us today.
Does that make it right? There are many who think no, along with those who think yes. If it is ever overturned, it will be the same way.
You said "Until viability, the woman's interest in her own freedom to procreate or not outweighs the potential newborn." However, as a woman I believe that "freedom" should have been practiced before procreation. Do we justify not wanting to face the consequences of our choices by taking a life? I think not.
I know that you will then question when that life really begins, as so many do. As a follower of Christ, I believe that question is answered biblically; and I believe that our medical advances have added a lot to this view also.
You had asked about law recognizing the fetus as a human life, and we have covered the fact that the law does. It is true that it appears in most instances that it addresses violent situations only. But if that baby is a "baby" when it is killed in utero by another, then why is it not also a "baby" when killed by the mother's choice? Logically, this makes no sense to me. It's either murder or it's not. Who does the murdering does not change what it is.
How about partial birth abortion? What is your view on this?