To believe that abortion is legal in America you have to believe several monstrous Big Lies:
1. That courts make our laws, even though the Constitution only grants lawmaking power to the legislative branch.
2. That our equal rights come from the arbitrary whims of men and can therefore be alienated, even though our nation's charter asserts just the opposite, that our rights come from our Creator and that they are therefore unalienable.
Any law, judicial opinion, or executive action that denies the equal right of any innocent person to live is lawless. It is null and void.
"This natural law, being as old as mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, from this original.”
-- William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England (1765)
"True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, although neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly called punishment ..."
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 59 - 47 B.C.
"Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence."
-- Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ia-Ilae, q. xciii, art. 3, ad 2m.
"Government...should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of natural rights of its members, and every government, which has not this in view, as its principle object, is not a government of the legitimate kind."
-- James Wilson
"[A]ll men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator."
-- Samuel Adams
"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature."
-- Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772
"The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained."
-- George Washington, 1789
From a citizen of Iowa, to our legislators:
First, let me say that HF 138 is righteous, lawful legislation. It is in perfect accord with the laws of nature and of nature's God.
It lines up perfectly with the stated self-evident natural law moral principles of our national charter, the Declaration of Independence.
It fulfills all of the clauses of the stated purposes of the document you swore before God to support and defend, the U.S. Constitution, and its explicit, imperative requirement in the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments that no innocent person be deprived of life, and that all persons, in every jurisdiction, in every State, be provided with the equal protection of the laws.
It fulfills every word of Article One, Section 1 of the Iowa Constitution which you also swore to God and the people of our great State to uphold.
Contrarily, HF 171 is utterly immoral, completely unconstitutional, and quite obviously unlawful. While defining children in the womb as persons, it fails to provide equal protection to all of those little persons, as the supreme law of the land absolutely requires, without exception.
In fact, it brazenly, explicitly, spells out which disfavored classes of innocent persons can be killed under the color of a lawless "law."
In Roe vs. Wade, abortion-supporting Justice Blackmun and his colleagues in the majority, while openly acknowledging the obvious fact that the Constitution "of course" absolutely, explicitly, requires equal protection for all persons, knew that they needed the fig leaf of the dehumanization of the child, the denial of the obvious, plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face fact that the child in the womb is in fact a human person.
Conversely, the writers of regulatory legislation like HF 171 go far beyond the gross injustice of Roe by admitting to the obvious personhood of the child, and then allowing disfavored classes of those persons to be slaughtered anyway.
Frankly, unlike Judge Blackmun, they don't even have a poor fig leaf. They're standing buck naked and helpless, morally, constitutionally, legally, and politically.
Every one of you who has a conscience that remains in any part un-seared, and a mind that still maintains some connection to logic, moral reason, and basic American morality, I beg you, just start doing the right thing. Keep your oath. Let God strategize the outcome for once. Please.
Adopt the decent, moral, statesmanlike attitude of our wise first President, George Washington:
"If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God."
An important letter from Representative Greg Heartsill. Please share.
An Open Letter to the Pro-Life Community
March 4, 2013
Dear Pro-Life Friends,
Every once in a while it becomes necessary for a movement to take a step back and ask itself some very important and fundamental questions. Questions like “What is our objective?” and “What are we doing to meet that objective?”
The pro-life movement is at such a point. After 40 years and 55 million disposed lives, it is insane for us to keep insisting on doing the same, incremental approach over and over again, and yet expect different results.
Ask any self-proclaimed pro-life activist or politician, “When does life begin?” They will answer, with rare exception, “At conception.”
Life begins at conception. Together, we all profess this truth. But professing belief in a truth and taking action on that truth are two entirely different things.
Since 1973, pro-life organizations have been aggressively trying to circumvent the egregious U.S. Supreme Court decision, Roe vs. Wade, all the while hoping to someday stack the court with pro-life justices that would lead to its eventual overturn. Despite all our efforts since then, this strategy has proved to have very little effect on ending abortion.
Perhaps instead of nibbling around the edges of Roe, we should have attacked it head on by using its own words against it. In his assenting opinion, Justice Henry Blackmun gives us the very antidote to his own decision: “If the state determines that a fetus is a person, then of course all protections of the 14th Amendment apply.”
Here are the keys to victory over Roe: If a state establishes personhood, then the justification and rationale for abortion collapses.
Last month, my good friend and fellow legislator, Representative Tom Shaw, introduced a bill (House File 138) that would define personhood in the State of Iowa as beginning at the moment of conception.
This bill states nothing more than what we in the pro-life community have been saying for the past 4 decades, what we have known biblically for millennia, and what modern science has been able to corroborate through the advances of technology: Life begins at conception.
As someone who firmly believes that life begins at conception, and as a newly minted legislator in the Iowa House of Representatives, I was proud to be the very first co-sponsor of this bill. I was also very pleased when seven other colleagues co-sponsored this bill as well.
Now that we have legislation in the Iowa House of Representatives that will codify the very truth that we claim we believe, something very odd and very noticeable is missing from the picture: Support from several prominent pro-life, pro-family groups in Iowa. Why?
This is what we believe as pro-lifers, right? Life begins at conception, right? We want to see an end to the slaughter of innocent life, right? Then why do some pro-life organizations sit silent?
I happen to know that House File 138 hasn’t slipped by unnoticed given the volume of emails I’ve received as a co-sponsor of the bill.
I’ve been told that one of the absent pro-life groups is concerned about the “messaging” of the bill. Really? The message of House File 138 is that life begins at conception and that the life of the child in the womb should be afforded all the rights, privileges, and equal protection that every other life is afforded under our country’s founding documents.
Are we really afraid of that message? Or are we afraid of the narrative used by the abortion industry that characterizes us falsely? We say that we believe in life at conception. Why not act upon it? Why not make a public stand for it?
As the legislative “funnel” deadline draws near, this is not a time for timidity and seclusion. For those pro-life organizations that have chosen to sit on the sidelines, your absence is more noticeable than your presence. Your silence speaks volumes.
To see the list of organizations that have registered their declaration on House File 138, check out the following web link:
Please go to this link to see if your pro-life organization has weighed in on House File 138. If they haven’t, then maybe they need to hear from you. You should know what their justification is for being silent on a bill that defines life as beginning at conception.
We should not expect God to bless our efforts in this battle if we are unwilling to have the courage to stand on our convictions, and if we are unwilling to back up our words with action.
Either you believe that life begins at conception or you don’t. If you don’t believe it, then have the courage to admit it. But if you are out there boldly proclaiming it, then stand by it. Don’t waver. Lead the charge (or at least come along when the charge is being led by others).
I submit to you that if you are not willing to defend life beginning at conception, then you really don’t believe in it.
Edmund Burke once said, “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Choose this day where you will stand on recognizing personhood for the unborn. I have staked out my position. How about you?
Representative Greg Heartsill
The Roe vs Wade Supreme Court and who appointed them:
Blackmun - Nixon, Republican
Powell - Nixon, Republican
Burger - Nixon, Republican
Rehnquist - Nixon, Republican
Brennan - Eisenhower, Republican
Stewart - Eisenhower, Republican
Douglas - Roosevelt, Democrat
White - Kennedy, Democrat
Marshall - Johnson, Democrat
One Democrat, Byron White, and one Republican, William Rehnquist, dissented.
By EMILY WAGSTER PETTUS
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) -- Mississippi's only abortion clinic says it is scheduled for an April 18 license revocation hearing before the state Department of Health.
The Center for Reproductive Rights said Wednesday that the Jackson Women's Health Organization had received notice of the hearing date.
Read this story at hosted.ap.org...
Gov. Beebe of Arkansas yesterday vetoed a bill that would have allowed abortions only if it was determined that the baby was less than 20 weeks old. His reason for the veto: the bill “would squarely contradict Supreme Court precedent” by imposing a ban on a woman’s right to choose an elective, non-therapeutic abortion before viability, Beebe said in a statement announcing the veto. “When I was sworn in as governor, I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend both the Arkansas Constitution and the Constitution of the United States. I take that oath seriously,” the governor said.
He's right about the bill being unconstitutional, but he's very wrong about why. The bill is unconstitutional because it fails the requirement that all persons must be afforded equal protection under the law. Any law that allows the killing of a baby just because he or she has not yet passed the 20 week gestational date clearly affords unequal protection to persons based on age. The Supreme Court has embraced a legal fiction in voicing opinion that children in the womb are not persons.
Read more about the veto, and the prospects for it being overriden, in the top front page story in today's Fort Smith Times Record -- http://swtimes.com/sections/news/politics/beebe-vetoes-abortion-bil...
volunteer - Rockville, Maryland
email@example.com SKYPE: steve.schulin
"These children, over tenfold the number of Americans lost in all our nation's wars, will never laugh, never sing, never experience the joy of human love; nor will they strive to heal the sick, or feed the poor, or make peace among nations. Abortion has denied them the first and most basic of human rights, and we are infinitely poorer for their loss."
-- Ronald Reagan
"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to The Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland, 1809
Rep. Tom Shaw of Iowa
By O. Kay Henderson
A group of Republican legislators has introduced legislation that would make all abortions illegal in Iowa and any doctor who performs an abortion in Iowa would face murder charges.
“What the bill does is it defines what a person is,” says Representative Tom Shaw, a Republican from Laurens who is the bill’s lead sponsor.
“We put it right underneath our murder statute. This is in keeping with Roe v Wade where Justice Blackman said that if the state ever defined the fetus to be a person, then, of course, it would have all the protections of the 14th amendment. ...”
“We just kind of sat down and thought, ‘We’re making this way too hard. We should be following what the Supreme Court said in their opinion,’” Shaw says. “And so the bill just merely defines who a person is and it defines a person from the moment of conception when the zygote is formed until natural death.”
“...we should not determine whether a person’s life is worth living based on their age or their stage of biological development,” Shaw says.
by Ben Johnson
WEST POINT, NY – A study published by West Point's anti-terrorism center claims the “pro-life paradigm” is a motivating factor in domestic terrorism.
Dr. Arie Perliger, director of terrorism studies at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center (CTC), makes the allegation in his report, “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right.” The document – which references abortion 76 times in 146 pages – was issued in November but only reported last month.
In an analysis of “far-right terrorism,” Perliger likens the pro-life movement to the Ku Klux Klan, skinheads, and Christian Identity (a racist Christian heresy).
“The Christian fundamentalist violent far right emerged from two ideological platforms,” he wrote. “The more influential and popular one is that of the Christian Identity school of thought” – a tiny sect that teaches that Jesus Christ came to save only white people and that Jews are the literal biological children of Satan.
“The second is the anti-abortion/pro-life paradigm,” Perliger wrote.
Perliger writes that the “ideological principles of pro-life violence” include the beliefs that “the abortion industry” engages in “the systematic killing of innocent and pure human beings”; that “since every human being is created in the image of God, it is by definition a sin to end their lives”; and that “any violent acts to end their lives [of 'fetuses'] are immoral and should be prevented.”
Perliger also raps liberty-minded small government activists, whom he calls “anti-federalists.” According to the report, such purported would-be terrorists believe the government has “a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights,” and they “support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self-government.”
According to Perliger, small government advocates' views are not merely violent but “designed to exclude minorities and foreigners.”
The section on the pro-life movement links Dr. C. Everett Koop and Francis Schaeffer's statement that Roe v. Wade “symbolize[d] the triumph of evil over good” to a 1979 attack on an abortion facility and likens it to “the ideological rhetoric of the Identity movement.”
Perliger accuses pro-lifers of “using chemical and biological weapons” by “contaminating the medical equipment of abortion clinics with chemical materials.”
Perliger's competence in U.S. domestic terrorism is not readily apparent. The Israeli received his Bachelor, Master, and Ph.D. in political science at the University of Haifa, writing extensively on Middle Eastern terrorism.
The meandering report appears to come to conflicting conclusions. At once he claims pro-life terrorists “have been extremely productive during the last two decades, amassing 227 attacks.” Yet he adds pro-life “violence” is in “clear decline” and represents “a less salient threat.”
While he acknowledges more than 15 times as many “violent attacks” (3,354) were carried out by “unaffiliated” assailants and that such assaults have a higher rate of “lethality,” he maintains that organized attacks represent a greater danger.
The report's conclusions and funding have sparked outrage. Conservatives, including one West Point graduate who wrote to the Superintendant in protest against the report, have rejected the latest report as another government-financed smear job.
“Like so many in the Obama administration, Perliger does not want to engage in any dialogue on the issues, but just discredit an entire political movement by ad hominem charged words,” said Herb Titus, the former dean of the Regent University School of Law. “Perliger is not a serious scholar but a propagandist for the existing regime.”
John Fund writes that the newest “report manages to lump together every known liberal stereotype about conservatives between its covers.”
Read this story at lifesitenews.com ...
Kevin M. Nelson
I love those times that I am sitting at the computer and BAMM! – A new idea for an article or image edit hits me like a ton of bricks (but in a good way). There are just times you know that what you are about to create is going to be special, something that will touch someone or silence the forked tongue.
Occasionally, when a moment like that strikes, I drift off temporarily and wonder if maybe, just maybe, I could actually do this for a living. You know, actually support my family and reach our financial goals by writing, creating, and speaking on some of these issues I am passionate about. Then I think about that issue I am most concerned about, abortion, and I am forced to look at the reality of what full-time paid activism, if focused on one issue alone, would mean in the long term scheme of life- If I am truly successful, if I accomplish all that I set out to do, I would then be out of a job, and left hoping that my skills would be requested elsewhere. Now I know there are people who do it, and this is the part where I have to qualify everything I just said or else be accused of insinuating all full-time pro-Life activists are corrupt, so take a deep breath and read on.
For me personally, I do not have the resources necessary to be fully vested in a type of employment where the goal is to become unemployed and obsolete as soon as possible. It would be like trying to make a living selling Bumper Stickers that say “Ban Bumpers”. Unless you are doing so as an attorney, knowing that you can always practice law in a different forum, or possess the financial resources for that day that winning the battle means having no job, I don’t know how people do it, and I will go so far as to say- I don’t think everyone that does it does so with the purest intentions. Even still, I know there are likely some that simply look to the Lord as their source of provision, as they should, and really fight the good fight with a pure heart. However, with so many pro-Life organizations, whose sole stated purpose is to end abortion, whose very livelihood comes from donations and bumper stickers and t-shirts designed to end abortion, it begs the question- are there some that only take it so far, who refuse to join forces with other like-minded efforts, because doing so successfully will mean there is nothing left to do? I know that’s sounds a little cynical, but think about it. How many stories have you heard about an important cancer drug study being scrapped and a new project started so that grant money would keep flowing? If we give any credence to those allegations, knowing that there are several types of cancer that must be individually cured, and considering that the act of intentionally aborting a child is viewed as one act that could one day be wiped out completely, and knowing that human nature is flawed and subject to temptations of greed, am I really far off in my skepticism?
There are some great people I know who live a very modest existence, and within their arsenal of advocacy is the abolishment of abortion. I know they are fighting on so many battlefronts that if abortion ended tomorrow, they would still have plenty of fighting left to do. My friend and mentor Tom Hoefling is an example of that type of diverse advocacy.
There are still others, like all those who call themselves Abortion Abolitionists A//A, which I very much consider myself a part of, who have regular jobs, but make abolition a part of their daily lives.
And still there are undoubtedly others that fight full time with the sincere hope of winning the fight and losing their job.
But I think it is time for the paid segment of “the industry” as a whole to come together and take a long hard look at their goals, their progress, and their motives, and start considering the possibility that maybe pushing for incremental legislation that protects some and codifies the deaths of others is just a form of self-preservation. Maybe there are a few among us that don’t really want to stop selling bumper stickers just yet. I agree that we cannot become so fragmented and divided that we lose our voice, but I also know that I don’t want to unite with or associate with anyone who is not completely committed to doing everything possible to end abortion immediately.
The thought of one day getting paid to do what I do, which is inclusive of but not limited to fighting to end abortion, admittedly that is appealing. But don’t ever offer me a job that amounts to getting paid to fight against just one evil, unless you have a new business in mind or one heck of a retirement plan, because I’m fighting to win.
Cal Zastrow: “Come on, Church! It’s your responsibility to stop the killing.”
Jackson, Mississippi – Three Christians in Mississippi were hospitalized this morning after being incapacitated with pepper spray by a guard as they sang hymns outside of the last abortion facility in the state.
The incident took place at approximately 8:30 this morning as the Christians stood on the public sidewalk outside of Jackson Women’s Health Organization in the state capital. As previously reported, the location, being the last abortion facility in Mississippi, may possibly close this year as it is unable to comply with state law.
Cal Zastrow, one of the men that was struck by the pepper spray this morning, told Christian News Network that the guard, Roy Benjamin, did not want the Christians anywhere near the facility.
“He came off the abortion mill property and put an oscillating sprinkler on the sidewalk to get all the pro-lifers wet,” Zastrow explained. “My 15-year-old held his boot over the sprinkler, so the bottom of his boot was getting sprayed but he wasn’t.”
However, just moments later as Zastrow and the others were singing hymns on the sidewalk, Benjamin began to unleash pepper spray on those gathered.
“He sprayed me in my mouth,” Zastrow said. “So, it went into the back of my mouth and into my throat and up to my eyeballs.”
He immediately fell to the ground. Zastrow’s 15-year-old son, Jim, and a third male, Doug Lane, were also incapacitated by the spray.
Although an ambulance came to the scene, Zastrow states that he ended up having a family member take him to the hospital because the ambulance staff treated him unkindly.
“[T]he guy wasn’t very cooperative or friendly about the matter,” he explained. “So, I called for my daughter to come and drive us to the hospital.”
He outlined that ambulance staff then told him that he would need to sign a form stating that he did not wish to ride in the ambulance. However, when he refused because he could not see anything, they became angry.
“A man who’s taller than me comes and starts yelling and screaming at me,” Zastrow said. “My friend said he was jumping up and down and screaming.”
Zastrow then spent most the day at the hospital, where his eyes and mouth were flushed, and suction cups were placed over his face to drip saline solution into his eyes. He will also need to see an optomologist following the incident as well.
After being released from the hospital, Zastrow went to the police station to file a complaint, but continued to experience difficulty as the station computer systems were down. Police would not accept a written report.
Although Diane Derzis, the manager of Jackson Women’s Health Organization, told reporters that Benjamin used the spray because he needed to “protect himself” from the Christians, Zastrow said that Benjamin’s actions were unwarranted.
“Nobody was threatened,” he said. “We were on the public sidewalk peacefully singing.”
Zastrow has been a part of a group of Christians that are working and praying for the shutdown of Jackson Women’s Health Organization in an effort to make Mississippi the first abortion-free state in the nation.
“My children and I have been having church on the sidewalk,” he explained, noting that they have participated in a 40-day “church on the sidewalk” effort. “We’ve been there for every single one of them.”
“Yesterday, we [participated in] a memorial service for the unborn and we showed the baby Daniel, who had been killed by abortion,” Zastrow continued. “We also went to two high schools to pass out pro-life literature.”
He further noted that on Sunday, the group went to several of the abortion facilities in the state that have closed over the years and began to share testimonies about how God is working to save lives.
Despite today’s adversity, Zastrow remained undeterred in his commitment to stand for the unborn. He stated that his desire is for the Body of Christ to be pro-life not in name only, but also in deed.
“Being pro-life doesn’t save any babies, acting pro-life does,” Zastrow declared. “Come on, Church! It’s your responsibility to stop the killing.”
THE PASSIONATE PRO-LIFER
All eyes are on Mississippi this week, as the last abortion mill in the state is in its death throes and America will commemorate the 40th anniversary of Roe v Wade ~ the most egregious U.S. Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott.
Pro-life Mississippi and Personhood Mississippi have worked tirelessly for decades to proclaim the God-given, inalienable right to life of every human being and to reestablish legal protection at every stage of development. Their efforts helped elect a Godly governor, whose heart is to protect every innocent child, in the womb.
Governor Bryant ran on a Personhood platform and fortuitously just last week, Alabama’s Supreme Court issued a historic ruling stating, “The decision of this Court today is in keeping with the widespread legal recognition, that unborn children are persons with rights that should be protected by law.”
Recently, Governor Phil Bryant eloquently expressed his strong desire for Mississippi to be abortion free. As America’s founders intended, every officer of the judicial, legislative and executive departments, at every level and in every branch, is required to use all lawful means to protect every innocent life within their jurisdictions.
Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortionists have hit a brick wall in attempting to obtain hospital privileges in Jackson, MS. Therefore, Governor Bryant now has the opportunity and duty to interpose himself between Diane Derzis or any other individual who thinks they have the right to kill innocent children in the state of Mississippi.
Reverend Flip Benham, of the States of Refuge campaign explains, “The people of Mississippi placed a man of God in the Governor’s office, for such a time as this.” “Governor, Bryant, seize this historic juncture to put an end to legal child killing in your state, so that other leaders will rise up and follow your courageous example. No innocent baby boy or girl should ever be intentionally killed in the womb on your watch, from this day forward.”
Like another courageous Republican, Ronald Reagan, who previously stood up to communism by proclaiming, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”, all God fearing Christians in Mississippi and across the nation urge Governor Phil Bryant to rise to the occasion by standing up to the child killing industry in his state and tearing down the last high place in Mississippi, making it the first abortion free state in America.
Passages of Right
Kevin M. Nelson
While there is no perfect way to attempt creating analogies or arguments that will properly reflect the sanctity and indescribable value of an innocent human life, I am always searching for new and better ways to unlock the closed minds of those who would rather put the convenience and circumstance of one human, above the God-given unalienable right of another, completely innocent human, to live.
Two questions come to mind when attempting this difficult task of unveiling the motives behind people’s casual willingness to destroy innocent human life:
1. Does the inability to see or fully understand something truly diminish the value of the unseen or mysterious- and/or- does not seeing something give people a calculated self-justification as a defense mechanism for deniability?
2. What do You value, if not innocent Human Life of another- your own life, the lives of wild animals or pets, inanimate objects, or philosophical concepts?
1. The Unseen and Misunderstood.
I am often amazed at the uninformed assumptions people hold regarding children at the fetal stage or what “terminating” the child actually involves, but even more so by those who become enraged by graphic images that do nothing more than depict the very same act they claim to condone, support, or advocate for.
The most staunch supporters of abortion never seem to address this hypocrisy, most notable on social media sites where one minute Miss Pro-“choice” is ranting and raving about the “fetus” being a blob that a women should not be “forced” to carry for nine months, only to absolutely freak when faced with an image of that “blob” with its torn limbs and pierced torso, all of which is followed by this staunch supporter “reporting” the image as “inappropriate” to the site’s governing powers, who most certainly seem more concerned about protecting liberal agendas and hate, while censoring truth and reality.
On the other end of the “unseen” spectrum is the first part of the question- is there a diminished value? Perhaps better stated- is it easier to classify the child as “less-than” when the world has not seen the baby’s face, or has not come to terms with understanding their own human prenatal development- several years or decades before holding a pro-abortion philosophy?
Consider, if you will, these imperfect analogies that inadequately, but hopefully at least somewhat effectively, describe things similar to the unseen forces of life:
The sun does not cease to exist simply because there is night.
(The baby does not cease to be a baby because it is hidden in the womb)
The sun does not cease to burn brightly because of a rain storm.
(The baby does not cease to be a baby because of an external circumstance)
Lightning is no less powerful simply because you cannot hold it or explain it.
(The baby is no less alive because it cannot yet be held in one’s arms or does not yet possess the features it will develop before birth)
A young White Oak (Quercus alba) sapling, uprooted by the wind and left to whither in the sun, does not, by definition, instantly become anything less than a dead White Oak (Quercus alba) sapling, no longer able to become the towering tree it might have been.
(Killing a Human (H. sapiens) baby in the womb does not cause it to suddenly become anything other than a dead Human (H. sapiens) baby. Often stated as- “abortion doesn’t make you un-pregnant, it makes you the mother of a dead baby”- author unknown)
2. What You value, or suddenly- Don’t value.
Is there anything more hypocritical than a self-described pro-abortion advocate (though they still often hide behind the popular term “Pro-choice”) being seen holding a baby, or attending a baby shower?
I submit to you that such actions are evidence of a selfish ideology that does not value innocent human life, at all, for anyone, but rather simply values people’s ability to have what they want, when they want it.
Their actions reflect this clearly, if you observe and listen carefully, though they may or may not actually say the following out loud:
“I want to focus on my career or education right now. I shouldn’t be forced to put those things on hold with a pregnancy”
Translation: My career or diploma/degree is more important than an innocent Life.
“My body- my choice. The government shouldn’t tell me what to do with my body”
Translation: My body is more important than the other body growing inside me. Government can tell people not to kill other people, unless the other person is a living preborn human baby.
“No Man is going to tell me I have to stay pregnant”
Translation: No one (not even one of those “brain-washed” Pro-Life women)can tell me killing a baby is wrong, but since men can’t give birth, I will target them. This makes me sound like a strong independent woman, and a champion of feminism. My independence to do what I want is more important than protecting the innocent human life I want to destroy.
“I’m still young. There are so many things I want to do before becoming a mother”
Translation: I planned the sex part, but didn’t plan on the getting-pregnant part. My personal freedom to have fun is more important than the innocent Life of the human baby that, by definition, means I’m already an expectant mother.
“Everyone is different. It’s a complicated issue. What’s right for you is not always right for someone else”
Translation: Morality is subjective. Dismembering and extracting a living human baby from the womb is only wrong if someone thinks it is wrong, or if personal desires and circumstances are conducive to motherhood at this time. My desire to avoid motherhood is more important than the fact that someone will die as a result of my personal moral standards.
“I am personally pro-life, but think others should have the right to decide for themselves”
Translation: I would never kill one of my own babies, but someone else’s freedom to decide whether or not to kill their baby is more important than the Life they may decide to destroy.
Career, Education, Fun, Independence Vs. An Innocent Human Life
If you’ve read down to this point, you probably fall into three categories:
Pro-Life, Undecided and seeking answers, or Pro-Abortion seeking a reason to change or to find the best line to formulate an angry response with.
Whoever you are, please bear with me just a little longer.
At the end of the day, some would rather focus on perceived “viability” of the human babies being discussed, rather than letting go of everything other than the simple fact-
It is an innocent, Human Life.
Unfortunately, the “viability” argument is deceptive, as it most always focuses on “Viability in the absence of any other assistance”.
Webster defines ‘viability’ a few different ways. Strangely, when describing humans, the term means such things as “able to exist as an independent unit” or “capable of survival outside of the womb”. Yet when discussing other life forms such as eggs or seeds, the meaning somehow suddenly changes to “capable of growing or developing”.
I challenge the notion that seeds or eggs should be categorized in a way that transcends the discussion of human life, but will work to address both views.
If we continue to base the sanctity of life on concepts like “viability” we are destined to become even more murderous than we have been in allowing 55,000,000 babies to be murdered since ‘Roe V. Wade’. There will be countless Terri Schiavo-like court-sanctioned dehydration murders at the behest of adulterous spouses. The dark society in which we live is only a degree away from allowing the “Viability” argument to justify murder of the elderly, the mentally or severely physically handicapped, or infants.
Do not these other groups of people require some sort of assistance that prevents them from living as an “independent unit”?
I know beyond reasonable doubt that my precious two year old little girl simply cannot survive as an “independent unit”. Though a completely healthy child, without assistance to eat or drink or bath or use the “potty”- she would die of starvation, dehydration, or disease. Does this mean that she therefore does not meet the “viability” standard and consequently does not have the same right to life as her eleven year old sister?
Now let’s look at the other definition of “viability” that more accurately describes the preborn baby in the womb, and my two year old daughter. Both are “capable of growing or developing”. The baby in the womb only loses that type of viability when outside forces including the deadly procedure of abortion, ends the baby’s life- which obviously ends all potential for growth or development.
Sadly, many severely disabled people do not meet most of these “viability” definitions.
Though not dependent on the womb, they are dependent on others to feed them, sometimes machines to help them breathe, and cannot survive as an independent unit, and depending upon their age and disability, may no longer be capable of growth or development. Does this mean that the severely disabled, not meeting the “viability” standards that many use, are lawfully or morally subject to neglect or execution?
In closing, I’ll leave you with a few words from a man who was there for the
‘Roe V. Wade’ ruling, Supreme Court Justice Byron White:
Senior Dissenting Justice, Byron R. White, called ‘Roe V. Wade’:
"a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it."
Also saying the Court: "values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries."
"We the People
"...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom...”
-- Abraham Lincoln