Posted on 10/11/2004 2:54:37 PM PDT by Ed Current
Originally published by The League of the South here. Abort Abortion
The pro-life movement estimates that 4000 children each day are either poisoned or butchered while still in the womb. That is, in the thirty years since Roe v. Wade, over 43 million children have been murdered and have received no protection from their civil governments. In these thirty years, reports indicate that the mood of the culture has changed, with teens being more likely than just ten years ago to oppose abortion; however, abortion is still considered a legally protected right. Except for possibly the population control advocates, abortion advocates are not as ideologically concerned with murdering children as much as they are about preserving abortion as a right. Certainly, I recognize that abortion providers have a fiscal interest in increasing the number of abortions provided;[1] however, if every pregnancy resulted in a natural end (either birth or miscarriage), but abortion was still legal, the pro-life movement would have lost the battle, and the pro-abortion "rights" advocates would have won. As such, every pro-life measure that seeks merely to chip-away at the number of abortions, while not asserting definitively that abortion is no such right, is a losing measure.
Parental-consent measures suggest that abortion is a right of every person, but one that may not be asserted by a youth without having met certain requirements. Partial-birth abortion bans suggest that abortion is a right, but it should not be done so distastefully, even if this form of abortion is most comfortable for the baby-victim. (Saline abortions pickle a child for hours; the D/C abortion chops the baby up while alive; whereas partial-birth abortions deliver the baby 2/3 of the way and instantaneously kills him.) Seeking a Constitutional Amendment declaring abortion illegal concedes a ground I am not willing to concede: that presently, abortion is legal. The above measures, or any other regulatory means of minimizing abortion, precariously chips away at the foundation of Law. As Samuel Rutherford wrote, "God's law doth not regulate a non-ens, a mere nothing, or an unlawful power."[2] Regulating abortion concedes its legality – prohibiting abortion denies its legality.
We have nearly 1,000 years of English Common Law history, let alone the 6,000 years of Biblical Law history, that reveal that Law exists apart from mankind, and it is man's duty to discover the Law and then faithfully to execute it. The "legal" things that men do apart from the Law are, as St. Paul called them, vain imaginations. Early Christians understood that the legality of Rome did not make abortion "lawful." Our Constitution's Supremacy Clause is recognition that "legal" and "Lawful" are different terms. Only those laws passed in accordance with the Constitution become the Supreme Laws of the Land.
The Path to Victory – The Interposition Solution
What does this jurisprudential history hold concerning abortion? The church does not have power over life or death. The early church did, however, make the penance for having an abortion life-long, indicating that abortion was equivalent to murder.[3] John Calvin wrote, under his commentary on Thou shalt not kill, "the fœtus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, (homo,) and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy."[4] Blackstone demonstrated that under Common Law that "life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual. … For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion or otherwise killeth it in her womb; or if anyone beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered a dead child; though this is not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter."[5] Additionally, "the punishment of a pregnant woman condemned shall be deferred until after her delivery."[6] While Common Law required in each of the above instances that the child be quickened, Biblical Law facially makes no distinction in Exodus 21:18-19. It must be under the authority of this revealed Law that we seek to end abortion.
It is the duty of all governments[7] to properly discover and administer the Law[8], for the "legislature in all … cases acts only … in subordination to the great lawgiver, transcribing and punishing His precepts."[9] What happens, then, if a state government has properly administered the Law, but the federal government declares such administration to be unconstitutional? The answer is found in the Doctrine of Interposition.
The Doctrine of Interposition has not been widely written on, so I am forced to rely on unpublished analysis[10] as well as some older and/or obscure texts[11] to those who are not likely to read a magazine such as this. Simply, "Interposition is an official act on the part of a State government to question the constitutionality of a policy established by the central government."[12] Our federal government is one of checks and balances; the Executive veto and the Court check the legislature's actions for constitutionality. Likewise, the Legislature and the Court check the President's actions. But who checks the Court? "The right to challenge any usurpation of power on the part of the Supreme Court must by lack of alternative, if for no other reason, devolve upon the States."[13] What does the Tenth Amendment mean if not that a State can interpose itself as a legitimate determiner of the Constitution to which it is a consenting party? Once a contract is formed, both parties have the right to ensure the proper enforcement of the terms of the contract and are not bound by the illegitimate breaches of that contract, absent a waiver.
At the turn of the 18th century, in response to the Alien & Sedition Acts, Jefferson and Madison, through the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions respectively, declared that the U.S. Constitution defined and limited the powers of the federal government, and "in case of deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of evil."[14] As co-parties to the Constitution, if the federal government breaches the contract, the states have an unquestionable right to determine a breach.[15] As Samuel Rutherford wrote, "The law permitteth the bestower of a benefit to interpret his own mind in the bestowing of the benefit."[16] Kentucky reasoned correctly, that a federal government that exclusively held the power to determine its own limits would "stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers."[17]
Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which established and governs the courts, is the shortest of the first three articles establishing and granting powers to the United States government. There is a clue there. Further, while it is unconstitutional to diminish the salary of judges while they hold their office, it is entirely constitutional for the Congress to strip the Supreme Court down to one member, namely a Chief Justice[18], or to further limit the jurisdiction of the courts, as suggested by Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama in his proposed Constitution Restoration Act.
Is a Supreme Court decision "law of the land?" The delegates to the Constitutional Convention limited the "Supreme Laws of the Land" to the Constitution first and subsequent "Laws of the United States made in Pursuance thereof," Art. VI, § 2. Court orders are conspicuously absent from the Supremacy Clause. If "all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void," Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1801) at 176-177, how much more so judicial orders? The "judiciary of the United States are not the masters of the Constitution but merely its interpreters."[19] Precariously absent from the decision in Roe v. Wade was Constitutional authority. The individual concept of "privacy" is neither in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. By allowing the judiciary to place "privacy" into the "penumbras of the Bill of Rights" (both alien concepts to our limited Constitutional republic[20]) we have permitted "those who administer the general government … to transgress the limits fixed by that compact." As Jefferson warned, the Court will "stop nothing short of despotism."[21] Perhaps it will be an oligarchy consisting of 9 men in dresses, but it will nonetheless cease to be the federal republic as set up in 1791.
Does Article III of the Constitution confer subject matter or original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court over the definition of human life? If not, is not Roe v. Wade a "dangerous exercise of … powers not granted"[22] to the Courts by the Constitution? It was in recognition of this duty to interpose which caused Thomas Jefferson to write in the Kentucky Resolutions, also in response to the Alien & Sedition Acts, "[I]f those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by the compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence."[23] Can we reasonably argue that, through the imposition of the Articles of Incorporation, our state governments are sovereign entities? As Patrick J. Buchanan wrote, "Using the incorporation clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court asserted a right to impose on the states all the restrictions the Constitution has imposed on Congress. At that point … the states of the Union became subject provinces of the Supreme Court."[24] But Jefferson argued that the "states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy." Where have all the state's-rightists gone?
The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were in response to procedurally sound, but unconstitutional, Executive and Legislative action. But what can be done against procedurally sound acts, but unconstitutional acts of the Judiciary? Pro-lifers like to make a comparison between the Dred Scott decision and Roe v. Wade to demonstrate the fallibility of the Supreme Court. Why not use the same tactics to overcome the pernicious Roe decision as did 22 states after Dred Scott? Wisconsin "denounced the Supreme Court for 'assumption of power' and declared 'that the several States … have the unquestionable right' to exercise 'positive defiance' in behalf of their interpretation of the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution."[25] It has been more than 30 years and over 43 million puréed babies, and not one state out of fifty has interposed itself between the general government in Washington and a struggling life in the womb. The states have neglected their duties for 30 years; nonetheless, they are duty-bound to interpose to arrest the evil of abortion.
A Constitutionally-minded state's Attorney General could open-up his copy of the state's laws, pull out the statutes still on the books declaring abortion illegal and prosecute, interposing himself between the Federal government and the unborn person he is trying to protect.[26] Absent an abortion law, is not a personal service contract to terminate a life (called a "hit" when the mark is born) homicide or manslaughter under Common Law, if not statute? A governor could pronounce that the shield of Justice will extend into the womb, unborn children will be protected against the enforceability of such illegal contracts and that he will call upon the Attorney General to prosecute the murdering abortionist and the people who consorted to have the unborn child "hit" under accomplice liability theory.
One aspect of Interposition which is not well-known (if it can be said that the former aspect was well-known) is that Interposition goes both ways. What would be the effect if a state declared murder legal? Such a law would be most likely a violation of that state's constitution, but it certainly is the foundational premise fostered in the July 4, 1776, Unanimous Declaration, that to secure the unalienable right to life, governments are instituted among men.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees to each state a "Republican form of Government." Can it really be said that a state that refuses to prosecute murder is a republican government and is adherent to the organic law of the Unanimous Declaration? If that state government is non-republican, Madison argued that the Federal government could interpose itself between the states citizens and the state without denying Article IV, § 4 of the U.S. Constitution. See Federalist No. 43 (6). If they had the temerity, either the President or the Congress could recognize that America's charter declared that men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable" and self-evident rights, including the right to life. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution states that such rights and liberties are secured for "our posterity," which means the following generations as yet unborn. The President, or the Congress, can declare that Justice will extend into the womb and that a refusal to prosecute murder is the epitome of denying justice and a willful breach of the federal compact, and stand between the state protecting the abortionist and the baby.
Interposition, Not Secession
One great objection to the Doctrine of Interposition comes from an anti-secessionist group which fears that the Union necessarily must be undone if a governor interposes himself between his state's citizens and the federal government. Let us not forget, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions and the refusal to recognize the Alien & Sedition Acts as Supreme Law of the land did not fracture the Union. Jefferson wrote "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men" and "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it." Let us also heed Jefferson's and Madison's advice from the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Virginia expressed "its deep regret, that a spirit in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter" as well as its "warm attachment to the Union of the States." Kentucky considered the federal union to be "conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states," and that it would be "among the last to seeks its dissolution." It is with respect to the Union and the Constitution that the Doctrine of Interposition can be offered. Interposition concedes no argument that "abortion is legal," or that we have to wait for a pro-life Judiciary or a Constitutional Amendment while allowing 4000 babies to get butchered daily. Interposition allows the principles of the Constitution to be obeyed without conceding validity to the Articles of Selective Incorporation. Simply, Interposition declares that the terms of the Constitution ought to be obeyed. Interposition is not Secession – it is sound contract theory that requires both parties, the Federal and the State, to obey the terms of the contract.
In fact, we can agree with Jefferson, who wrote, "[Virginia] would, indeed, consider such a rupture [of the union] as among the greatest calamities which would befall them; but not the greatest. There is yet one greater, submission to a government of unlimited powers."[27] As the Declaration demonstrates, "Prudence … will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes."
What if the Courts refuse our plea? Is the un-prosecuted murder of over 43 million babies a light and transient cause? The time is closing before we can no longer reign in the judicial, the executive and legislative branches, state and federal, of civil government. Before long it will be a "long train of abuses and usurpations" which gives rise to our "duty to throw off such Government." Our personal, individual duty has not yet arisen, since as of late, no state has even attempted to stand between the butcher and the baby.
[1] Carol Everett, What I Saw in the Abortion Industry, Easton Publishing Company (1988)
[2] Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex; or The Law and the Prince, Sprinkle Publications, 7 (1982)
[3] R.J. Rushdoony, Rushdoony on Abortion: Distant Early Warning, Institute for Christian Economics, 11 (1989).
[4] John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries, vol. III, Baker Book House, 41-42 (1996)
[5] Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, vol. I, 129 (1765).
[6] Blackstone, op. cit, at vol IV, 395.
[7] Ultimately, there are only three forms of government: democratic, aristocratic and monarchical. The glory of the civil governments in these united States is that they appropriately melded the benefits, thereby mitigating the detriments, of each of them. See Blackstone, op. cit., vol. I, 49.
[8] Romans 13
[9] Blackstone, op. cit., vol. I, 54.
[10] Herbert W. Titus, "Ending 'Legal' Abortion," paper, The First 100 Ways presented to the Board of Trustees of the Conservative Caucus Foundation, January 13, 1997.
[11] Felix Morley, Freedom and Federalism, Liberty Fund, Inc., Indiana (1981) at ch. 15; James McClellan, Liberty, Order and Justice: An Introduction to the Constitutional Principles of American Government, Liberty Fund, Inc., Indiana (2000) at 493.
[12] Morley, op. cit, 240.
[13] Morley, op. cit, 241.
[14] Virginia Resolutions in General Assembly, para. 2, December 24, 1798. (emphasis added)
[15] Kentucky Resolutions in General Assembly, para. 4. December 3, 1799
[16] Rutherford, op. cit., 60.
[17] Kentucky Resolutions, para. 4.
[18] McClellan, op. cit., 506-507
[19] Viscount Bryce, The American Commonwealth, as quoted in Morely at 233.
[20] United States Constitution, Tenth Amendment
[21] Kentucky Resolutions in General Assembly, December 3, 1799.
[22] Virginia Resolutions, para. 2.
[23] Kentucky Resolutions, para. 4.
[24] Patrick J. Buchanan, The Death of the West, Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin's Press, New York, 2002, p. 183.
[25] James F. Kilpatrick, The Sovereign States, Henry Regnery Co., Chicago, 1957 pp. 269-270 as quoted in Morley at 245.
[26] Titus, "Ending 'Legal' Abortion."
[27] Thomas Jefferson, Draft Declaration in Protest of the Commonwealth of Virginia on the Principles of the Constitution of the United States and on the violation of them. December 1825.
Scott T. Whiteman an attorney in Massachusetts, is presently serving as the Campaign Manager for Michael Anthony Peroutka’s campaign for President of these united States, and resides in suburban Maryland with his wife and three young children.
Rabbi Yehuda Levin, "The Silent Holocaust in Israel: Abortionists kill more children than terrorists," Jews for Morality, 20 Elul 5763 / 17 Sept, 2003, http://www.jewsformorality.org/israel_abortion.htm
Mary Meehan, "The Ex-abortionists:Why They Quit," The Human Life Review, Spring/Summer 2000. As a young doctor in the early 1970s, Paul E. Jarrett, Jr., did a number of legal abortions. He began having doubts, though, after the urea-induced abortion of a mental patient. The child, weighing two pounds, was born alive, and the mother screamed, "My baby's alive! My baby's alive!" Dr. Jarrett later said, "I often wondered what we did for her mental status. That baby lived several days."
But it was a 1974 operation that "changed my mind about abortion forever." While doing a suction abortion, Jarrett found that the suction curette was obstructed by a torn-off fetal leg. So he changed techniques and dismembered the child with a ring forceps: And as I brought out the rib cage, I looked and I saw a tiny, beating heart. And when I found the head of the baby, I looked squarely in the face of another human being-a human being that I'd just killed. I turned to the scrub nurse and said, "I'm sorry." But I just knew that I couldn't be a part of abortion any more. http://www.humanlifereview.com/summer2000/meehan_s2000.html
Rehnquist, "Roe V. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)," "To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.
There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113
Rudolph J. Rummel, Saving Lives, Enriching Life: Freedom as a Right and Moral Good, (January 17, 2001), Chapter 6 - "Freedom Virtually ends Genocide and Mass Murder." "....democide is a government's murder of people for whatever reason; genocide is the murder of people because of their race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, or language." http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WF.CHAP6.HTM
American Life League, Definition of abortion: The administration of any drug, device, potion, medicine, or any other substance or the use of any instrument or any other means whatsoever with the specific intent of terminating the life of a preborn child [the human being in existence from fertilization until birth] or preborn children; "abortion" shall not be construed to include the following: 1. a case in which the unintended death of a preborn child or preborn children results from the use by a physician licensed to practice medicine under (insert code pertinent to law) of a procedure that is necessary to save the life of the mother or the preborn child or preborn children. And that is used for the express purpose of, and with the specific intent of, saving the life of the mother or of the preborn child or preborn children; 2. a spontaneous abortion; 3. the removal of a preborn child who has died; 4. any therapeutic treatment or surgery performed upon a preborn child or preborn children that results in the unintentional death of a preborn child or preborn children. http://www.all.org/issues/abdefine.htm
Dr. Stephen Schwarz, The Moral Question of Abortion, (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 1990), Chapter 14: "Some Legal Dimensions."
Abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. It is a case of murder. It must be called by its proper name, both in the moral and legal order. Anything less is an injustice to the child. The seriousness of the charge of murder is a reflection of the seriousness with which we take the reality of the victim of the killing. Preborn babies are not lesser persons - they are our equals. Killing a child before birth is as much murder as killing that child, or anyone else, after birth. The law must reflect and express this. It must call abortion by its proper term: murder. http://www.ohiolife.org/mqa/14-1.asp
Exceptions
Abortion is murder, and murder can never be sanctioned by the law. We cannot kill the woman to save the child. Equally, we cannot kill the child to save the woman. We may not be able to save both, we may have to withhold treatment from one if it cannot be given to both, but we may never deliberately kill the one to save the other.
The law should incorporate the three principles discussed earlier, in chapter 10. I propose it include the following section:
If complications arise, all reasonable efforts must be made to save both the woman and the child. Each must be respected and treated equally as a person. Neither may be killed for the benefit of the other, or in an attempt to save the life of the other.
Let us turn finally to the question of exceptions regarding the IUD and other abortifacients. The same principle applies here too: there can be no exceptions, all preborn persons must be given legal protection. http://www.ohiolife.org/mqa/14-2.asp Testimony of Gianna Jessen House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution July 20, 2000 My name is Gianna Jessen. I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I count it no small thing to speak the truth. I depend solely on the grace of God to do this. I am 23 years old. I was aborted and I did not die. My biological mother was 7 months pregnant when she went to Planned Parenthood in southern California and they advised her to have a late-term saline abortion. A saline abortion is a solution of salt saline that is injected into the mothers womb. The baby then gulps the solution, it burns the baby inside and out and then the mother is to deliver a dead baby within 24 hours. This happened to me! I remained in the solution for approximately 18 hours and was delivered ALIVE on April 6, 1977 at 6:00 am in a California abortion clinic. There were young women in the room who had already been given their injections and were waiting to deliver dead babies. When they saw me they experienced the horror of murder. A nurse called an ambulance, while the abortionist was not yet on duty, and had me transferred to the hospital. I weighed a mere two pounds. I was saved by the sheer power of Jesus Christ. Ladies and gentleman I should be blind, burned.....I should be dead! And yet, I live! Due to a lack of oxygen supply during the abortion I live with cerebral palsy. When I was diagnosed with this, all I could do was lie there. "They" said that was all I would ever do! Through prayer and hard work by my foster mother, I was walking at age 31/2 with the help of a walker and leg braces. At that time I was also adopted into my wonderful family. Today I am left only with a slight limp. I no longer have need of a walker or leg braces. I am so thankful for my Cerebral Palsy. It allows me to really depend on Jesus for everything. When the freedoms of one group of helpless citizens are infringed upon, such as the unborn, the newborn, the disabled and so called "imperfect," what we do not realize is that our freedoms as a NATION and Individuals are in great peril. I come today in favor of this Bill, in favor of the Protection of Life. I come to speak on behalf of the infants who have died and for those appointed to death. Learned Hand, a well respected American Jurist (within our own century) said: " The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near 2000 years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned, but has never quite forgotten; that there is a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest." Where is the soul of America?! Members of this committee: where is YOUR heart? How can you deal with the issues of a nation without examining her soul? A murderous spirit will stop at nothing until it has devoured a nation. Psalm 53:1-3 says: "The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God'; they are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; there is none who does good. God looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. Every one of them has turned aside; they have together become corrupt; there is none who does good, no, not one." Adolph Hitler once said: "The receptive ability of the great masses is only very limited, their understanding is small; on the other hand their forgetfulness is great. This being so, all effective propaganda should be limited to a very few points which in turn, should be used as slogans until the very last man is able to imagine what is meant by such words." Today's slogans are: "a woman's right to choose" and "freedom of choice," etcetera. There was once a man speaking from hell (recorded in Luke 16) who said "I am tormented in this flame." Hell is real. So is Satan, and the same hatred that crucified Jesus 2000 years ago, still resides in the hearts of sinful people today. Why do you think this whole room trembles when I mention the name Jesus Christ? It is because He is REAL! He is able to give grace for repentance and forgiveness to you and to America. We are under the judgement of God - but we can be saved through Christ. Romans 5:8-10 "But God demonstrates his own love towards us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For when we were ENEMIES we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." Death did not prevail over me....and I am so Thankful!!
As a personal aside, I informed my boss today with the joyous news that my wife is pregnant with our second. The secretary - also in his office - asked, "Oh, is that a good thing, or does she not want the baby?" I just about lost it, and replied, "That's a stupid question." She said something like "It depends on what your desires", to which I added, "or values." I ended the conversation by saying, "My own father was 'unwanted'." to which she could not respond.
Are people so stupid, so callosed, as to not see the blatant, flashing-neon parallelism between Roe v. Wade and Dred Scott? One of my fantasies is to utterly blanket downtown Seattle with flyers and images showing these god-hating ignoramouses exactly what "choice" looks like.
The absolute worst, hurtful and cavalier attitude that pro-aborts have is that of killing these babes for their own good.....
I informed my boss today with the joyous news that my wife is pregnant with our second.
CONGRATULATIONS!
Russell E. Saltzman, is pastor of Ruskin Heights Lutheran Church, Kansas City, Missouri, and editor of the independent Lutheran publication Forum Letter. This is reprinted with permission from the August 2002 Forum Letter, and is copyright 2002 by the American Lutheran Publicity Bureau. "Everything Personal: Children Born of Rape or Incest," Touchstone Magazine, Jan/Feb 2003. "I belong to an on-line support group (me, in a sup- port group, there’s a picture) composed of adult children born of rape or incest. There are more of us in the former category than the latter. Jennifer is our webmistress, organizer, facilitator, coach, head nanny, chief nag (though very nice about it), and the child of a violent rape. Mostly, I lurk. But for some in the group, I am a kind of unofficial chaplain and sometime pastoral advisor. There are children born before Roe v. Wade as well as children born after Roe v. Wade. The handles adopted by some in the group are evocative: "former fetus," "unawares angel," names like that." http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/16.1docs/16- 1pg19.html
Robert Hart, "Her Mother’s Glory: The Hardest Abortion Case," Touchstone Magazine, Jan/Feb 2003. " She is a young lady who spreads joy wherever she goes. She has a place in the lives of many, not only her new husband, her parents, and her brothers, but many who know her well, and many who have met her in passing—a unique place that no one else could fill. She is happy by nature at 23, married, an avid reader, a good friend, a serious Christian. This is the person that these well-meaning people were willing to sentence to death. Oh, not now, not when they can see her; but when she was in danger the first time, in the womb and hidden from view." http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/17.1docs/17- 1pg18.html
Pamela Pearson Wong, "Abortion’s House of Cards," Concerned Women for America, Family Voice, January/February 2001. "I, having lived through rape and also having raised a child ‘conceived in rape,’ feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest," says Kathleen DeZeeuw in Victims and Victors. "I feel we’re being used to further the abortion issue, even though we’ve not been asked to tell our side of the story." We can begin by educating the public and legislators on what the women themselves—the victims of rape and incest—say about abortion. "Get Victims and Victors to legislators. Ask them to call for congressional hearings," says Dr. Reardon. "Urge them not to provide money for abortions resulting from rape or incest until they hear what the women say." http://www.cwfa.org/familyvoice/2001- 01/14-20.asp
David C. Reardon, Julie Makimaa and Amy Sobie (Editors), Victims and Victors (San Francisco, CA 94109: Acorn Books, 2000). "In Victims and Victors, 20 women like the ones quoted above share what it is like to face a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. They speak bravely and candidly of the pain of sexual assault, of the sadness and trauma of abortion, and of the joy and healing of giving birth." http://www.afterabortion.org/Victims/
Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke, Why Can't We Love Them Both, (Snowflake, AZ 85937: Heritage House 76, Inc., 1998) Chapter 29, Rape. States that 170 to 340 assault rape pregnancies occur per year in the United States. http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_can t_we_love_them_both_29.asp
One thing though, that I don't quite understand. Most pro-lifers, to the best of my knowledge, do not feel comfortable labeling the girl who seeks and abortion a murderer, and demanding she do hard time, as they would for anyone else they considered a murderer.
I once asked a pro-lifer if she viewed the woman who seeks an abortion in the same way she viewed OJ Simpson, and she said no. And my point is that there seems to be ambivalence here, especially insofar as the abortion seeker is concerned.
The pro-lifers I know are much more inclined to agree that the abortionist is a murderer who should be punished, but he would be without work if it weren't for the Mother to be. So, if we are to consider it murder, then all parties involved in the murder, most especially the one who hires it out, should be treated as murderers.
Most pro-lifers, to the best of my knowledge, do not feel comfortable labeling the girl who seeks and abortion a murderer, and demanding she do hard time, as they would for anyone else they considered a murderer.
Many pro-lifers are ex-abortionists, such as Testimony of Carol Everett, former Abortion Provider fully realize their profound evil.
Nevertheless, you are correct:
"State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims (Fetal Homicide)," National Right to Life Committee, February 20, 2004 http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/Statehomicidelaws092302.html
Jim Rudd, "The Bible Regards Abortion as Murder," Covenant News, August 30, 1999. The Bible has always regarded abortion - killing the child in the womb as murder, a crime punishable by the death penalty. The grounds for this judgment are "Thou shalt not kill" (Ex.20:13); Child Sacrifice, "he shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 20:1-5); and Exodus 21:22-23, where an example of abortion is found...." http://covenantnews.com/cspa990830.htm
You have a valid point. It is manifestly evident that the mother is a willing accomplice.
Pro-life/pro-baby ping...
Just my opinion but I don't think you had anything to apologize for. She should have apologized to you for her lack of class/tact. It must be something to come from a world in which people share news with coworkers of their spouse's UNwanted babies. I have sympathy that she would even think that.
Congratulations - you've been blessed. Again.
Let us continue to work for the day when every pregnancy, every new life is cause for rejoicing.
I agree, they are both murderers, and all would be withhout work if it were not for the help of the RINOs.
George Wallace interposed himself at the University of Alabama, to oppose a Negro enrolling.
20 some years later, folks interposed their bodies in front of abortion mills. (Google on "pro-life rescue")
The death culture could have been rolled back in the late 80's - but a lot of high profile so-called religious leaders went wobbly.
Since then, the legislative strategy has done zilch. We had folks in the streets and in jail, and the power that be frittered it away.
imo, this needs to be considered when trying to understand why we find ourselves in such a mess as we are now in.
Living, as we are, in a society steeped in abortion culture - with deep inroads into areas of pop-culture such as the cavalier treatment of extramarital relations seen in the film arts, magazines, etc. - we have to be careful about how this truth is represented. If we come out and call people "murderers" we put too much strain on the lever and snap it in two. We are summarily dismissed - not by facts, but by the severity of the accusation. This would apply to our personal conduct within our own respective spheres of family and vocation.
Having said that, the Center for BioEthical Reform is doing excellent work, shocking though it is. As Gregg Cunningham noted in a recent letter from CBR, successful social reform is always precipitated by deep social division. Some will flee to the other side because they feel "my space is being invaded", to quote one angry Penn State academic. Their comfort zone is being challenged. CBR's actions are both appropriate and necessary within the Public sphere, and I am going to support them in their Key States initiative. If I were a millionaire I would easily give a six figure gift to their work, and help out myself.
Thanks CP! Especially from you this means a lot.
Please PING your lists, I'm unable currently.
PING
Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life PING LIST.
My real point was that there seems to be ambivalence even among us pro-lifers in making that distinction between murder of a person who has been born and lived so many years, and the unborn baby. And I wonder why that is?
we have to be careful about how this truth is represented. If we come out and call people "murderers" we put too much strain on the lever and snap it in two. We are summarily dismissed - not by facts, but by the severity of the accusation.
Your point can be argued in accordance with Cognitive Dissonance Theory Leon Festinger ( 1919-1989)
Festinger considered the human need to avoid dissonance as basic as the need for safety or the need to satisfy hunger. It is an aversive drive that goads us to be consistent. The tension of dissonance motivates us to change either our behavior or our belief in an effort to avoid a distressing feeling. The more important the issue and the greater the discrepancy between behavior and belief, the higher the magnitude of dissonance that we will feel. In extreme cases cognitive dissonance is like our cringing response to fingernails being scraped on a blackboard—we’ll do anything to get away from the awful sound.
Several years ago, a woman I know of was expecting her 6th child. One day when she was in an elevator with her other kids, a fellow passenger said something to the effect of 'why are you pregnant again?' 'you already have enough kids, don't you?'
She was so upset by it, that she began shaking, and really couldn't respond to the woman. I felt so bad for her. I wasn't there with her when it happened, and I don't have any kids, but if someone would have said anything like that to me, I can assure you that it would have been her shaking, not me.
Can you imagine the gall?
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.