Posted on 10/21/2008 10:26:36 PM PDT by Fichori
By MrJesse. Initially posted 10/20/2008
In todays flurry of election slogans and banter, I would like to point out a few facts that ought to be kept in mind regarding one important difference between Obama and McCain: The life of the unborn. Obama supports abortion, McCain+Palin appose it (except to save the life of the mother.)
Scientifically speaking, an unborn human is unquestionably all of the following:
Alive: It's growing, not rotting or shrinking.
Innocent: Never been tried in a court of law.
Human: Every cell is stamped with a DNA code that proves it is human.
Unique: Its DNA is not identical to either parent.
This makes it an innocent human life - and under no other circumstances do we allow (much less federally fund) the premeditated intentional killing of an innocent human life.
Furthermore, an unborn baby is not "just part of its mother." (I am speaking scientifically and medically here. Emotionally, a child feels very much like part of its parents and grandparents. But I'm speaking scientifically here - not about feelings.) The baby is inside, and dependent on its mother - but neither being inside nor dependent on is the same as being part of. Every DNA cell in the baby identifies it as somebody else besides its mother -- and the baby's blood does not even mix with the mother's. The baby is sealed inside a special isolating shield.
Besides, if one intentionally leaves a grown man with no coat and no food on the north pole in the middle of winters long night with the intention to kill him, the perpetrator would probably be charged with first degree murder. Just because someone's dependent doesn't mean that they can be killed.
Again furthermore, there are certain cases where it is legal for a person to be killed. (By legal, I mean that the killer will probably not be charged with murder.) One is in self defense, another is just-war (which is corporate and personal self defense) and another is capitol punishment by proper legal process, and another is accidental.
But abortion is a case where the punishment is death, but the crime doesn't fit the punishment. Actually, we can't even really call it punishment because the baby isn't even said to have committed any crime. And it's not self defense, since the baby wasn't threatening anyone's life. And it's clearly not war. Nor is it an accident - indeed, it is planned by several people who conspired together to do it. There is only one scenario other then abortion for the intentional premeditated killing of an innocent human life - and that is first degree murder.
Let us not forget that abortion providers make millions of dollars killing for hire, and work hard lobbying congress to protect their trade and to continue to get federal funds as well. It is a sick world when these babies are killed because they are worth more dead (in abortion fees to providers) then alive. It is murder for hire! I realize that it's not politically correct to say that, but if you scientifically look at the facts, that is what it is: murder for hire.
"What is it" matters. A hundred years ago we could have feigned ignorance, but with the advanced technology of today, "what it is" has been answered for us.
Scientifically, an unborn human baby is unquestionably an innocent human life, and under any circumstances other then abortion, the intentional premeditated killing of an innocent human life is first degree murder. If your world view contains the concept of wrong, then surely the intentional killing of an innocent human life must be wrong. And these are the most innocent of all!
Sincerely,
Jesse
Good writing. Kept it simple.
“What is it” matters. A hundred years ago we could have feigned ignorance, but with the advanced technology of today, “what it is” has been answered for us.
***Of course, it’s the demonrat party that’s behind the times on this issue. They just love to paint us as the backwards folk.
Beautiful in a very sad way. Thank you for posting this. I think this might actually give me another point when arguing too.
The most basic approach to the topic and the ancillary issues is to distinguish between organism and the subunits of same. The pregnant female is an organism, and the alive unborn from conception onward to implantation and then onward to subsequent birth is an organism. Our laws are aimed to protect and defend and define the rights of a human organism, not human organs. Or at least they were intended that way, but the democrat slip and slide toward utilitarian socialism has cancelled many of the fundamental things authored for us by our founders.
Good observation and argument against the liberals with the “right to chose’ to kill agenda.
I’ll probably get a mixed reaction, but...
I believe in a womans right to chose, even if she hasn’t been born yet.
I believe in a womans right to chose, even if she hasn’t been born yet.
***Thought provoking and even tagline worthy.
I heard another a while back. “I believe in a woman having right to choose when it comes to her own body. Unfortunately, her body does not have 2 noses, 2 mouths, 4 eyes and 4 ears.”
(Borrowed) Pro-Life ping!
Thanks for the ping!
BTTT
Excellent. An exercise in logical thinking that is above Obama’s pay grade.
Your very welcome!
During the first decades of the 1800’s, scientists began to understand the cellular basis of life and for the first time were able to observe the process of fertilization in mammals. As the stages of development became clear, it also became clear that abortion kills a living human being, no matter what the stage of the child's development. The resulting scientific knowledge about the process of conception and development led to efforts to enact stronger bans on abortion. In addition, scientific progress allowed for surgical means of performing abortion, and abortion was perceived to be on the increase. Beginning in 1859, the American Medical Association called for strong anti-abortion laws and vigorous enforcement of them. In view of the claim by twentieth century abortionists that physicians did this only to protect their own profession or solely to protect women's health, it is useful to quote the doctors themselves on why they wanted action by the states:
“The first of these causes is a wide-spread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime—a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.
“The second of the agents alluded to is the fact that the profession themselves are frequently supposed careless of fetal life; . . .
“The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being.
“In accordance, therefore, with the facts in the case, the Committee would advise that this body, representing, as it does, the physicians of the land, publicly express its abhorrence of the unnatural and now rapidly increasing crime of abortion; that it avow its true nature, as no simple offence against public morality and decency, no mere misdemeanor, no attempt upon the life of the mother, but the wanton and murderous destruction of her child. . “ Volume 12, Transactions of the American Medical Association, pp. 75-78 (1859).
The AMA adopted the recommendation described above and sponsored initiatives in all states, spurring most legislatures to enact strong prohibitions upon abortion that swept away the “quickening” distinction. In the remaining states, abortion remained prohibited by common law.
Pro-Life PING
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
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.