ABORTION MAP OF THE UNITED STATES - 2004

CHRISTIAN PATRIOTS FOR LIFE ^ | 1-20-04 | Kevin Jeanfreau

[Diamond]

This is your quote! You did not specify Roe!

True enough. But your only response to my questions about the purpose of law, and whether or not you think there can be any such thing as an unjust law was to have me as a putative law-breaker discussing moral and legal philosphy with my fellow inmates. Since we were discussing the evil and unjust ROE decision, and since I had no idea what other law you thought I could disobey to end up in prison discussing moral and legal philosophy with my fellow inmates, I naturally wanted to know how I could disobey that decision and thus end up in that prison.

Incidentally, one of the major reasons we do have juries is to guard against the unjust prosecution of laws, as well as the prosecution of unjust laws.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

Three minutes after the lab tech combines egg & sperm, that combination has a constitutionally protected right to life? -- Get real, -- you are hyping the issue.

When then did you, for example, begin to exist? At what other point could you have possibly begun to exist other than at the beginning? Do you believe that your mother had, or should have had the right to kill you at some point in your life? If yes, then that view doesn't seem logical to me. It seems self-defeating.

Cordially,

[cpforlife.org]

Diamond and epow,

I want to personally thank you both for being such strong defenders of life.

I don’t generally spend this much time arguing with the opposition, as it is rarely a productive use of time. In fact I have tried to focus my efforts on what will actually change the culture—specifically what will address the source of the problem instead of patch working the symptoms.

The article below outlines my ideas. Hopefully potential future readers of this thread will appreciate it, as the “debate” within this thread tends to prove my points. I’ll try to publish it soon and want to share it with you both here. Any comments by you or any Pro-Life Freepers reading this are most welcome.

------------------------------------------------

The Pro-Life movement continues to fight with its strong arm tied behind its back

As a member of the Pro-Life movement I am writing this as something of an open letter to my friends and compatriots everywhere.

My purpose here is to highlight what will be necessary to achieve major change. Let us issue a challenge for people involved and responsible to begin to make the necessary changes.

I am talking about COMPREHENSIVE sanctity of life education with special emphasis on the first nine months of life before birth, implemented in all Christian Schools throughout the country. Age appropriate lesson plans WITH REGULAR TESTING should begin in pre-K and last throughout high school. Many pro-life activists will stop reading at this point, as this idea seems to fall on deaf ears. Please don't stop reading, but consider that the pro-abortion movement uses similar ways to actively indoctrinate students in public schools into the culture of death—with devastatingly effective results.

The Pro-Life movement operates essentially in a constant state of damage control. We focus our energies on those people who defend "Choice" trying to change their minds to our way of thinking; when significant numbers of these very people went through Christian schools and would be working with us today—if they simply were taught LIFE in the first place.

It is far more effective to properly form (and inform) the consciences of Christians while they are in Christian school regarding the sanctity of life than it is to try to change their minds when they are older. Yet for various reasons, none of which are acceptable, true and comprehensive LIFE education is a rarity in Christian schools across the country. After 31 years, it is long past the time for Christian school systems and Pro-Life leaders to act together on this simple reality.

Full legal protection for persons waiting to be born is well beyond reversing Roe; it requires a LIFE Amendment to the Constitution. This goal necessitates a shift in cultural and voting trends in the tens of millions. The only realistic way for this to happen is with a new generation of Christians fully educated on the sanctity of Life before birth.

Ways to free our strong arm—Weapons of Mass Instruction

A book entitled Respect LIFE Curriculum Guidelines, which was published in 1977, covers all of this in great detail. We have posted excerpts from these Guidelines on our web site at http://cpforlife.org/id94 and a link to where this great resource can still be purchased. Sadly it has gone unused. From the Preface (page 4):

"Through the process of ongoing education from early childhood through mature adulthood, programs developed from these Guidelines will strengthen positive attitudes toward life and weaken attitudes which are negative."

"The education envisioned by these Guidelines seeks long-term improvements. The assumption here is (1) that positive respect life attitudes can be inculcated through educational processes, and (2) that these attitudes and values, reflected in the many issues of daily life, will have practical impact on people's lives and environment."

This 109 page book holds a tremendous potential to create a majority of pro-life Christians who would live, work, and VOTE to restore equal protection to all citizens—born and UNBORN.

For our part we have several resources, which help promote the concept of Pro-Life education in Christian Schools. First we have published online, The Missing Key of the Pro-Life Movement, a document that thoroughly develops the concepts of this article. Following that, we have available our Pro-Life education program for kindergarten through 12th grade which has been online for 4 years. Lastly, we are nearing completion of our Respect LIFE educations series. This will include 10 unique lesson plans for each grade from pre-K through 12th. We will make this available for free as downloadable documents at our website.

Parents with children in Christian schools must get involved in asking the leadership of the schools to institute K-12 pro-life curricula. In the meantime parents must educate their children on LIFE at home.

We have had thirty-one years of failed politicking, during which the root cause of the abortion holocaust has not been properly addressed. Teaching our next generation about the sanctity of life and the evils of abortion is the correct and Christian thing to do. For when it comes to the soul of a nation—a nation that is uneducated is one that cannot change.

Kevin M. Jeanfreau, founder
Christian Patriots For Life
http://www.CpForLife.org

[verity]

It's playtime again.

You originally entered the fray by criticizing me for the manner in which I replied to epow who initiated the discussion regarding unjust laws. My point then, as it is now, is that a person can be prosecuted for the violation of law that she/he/it deems unjust.

My initial challenge to cp's article was using the term murder thus implying that some punishable crime was being committed. [It is amazing how this discussion has evolved beyond that point.]

With regard to your note about jury nullification, I remind you that the actions of the OJ jury certainly did not advance the case of justice.

[epow]

I took your previous posts as serious questions. Now I see you're only playing word games with an underlying agenda. I grant that you're a clever wordsmith and gamesman, but I don't intend to play the patsy in your game.

[epow]

I'm saying the state must follow our constitution in the writing of law. They cannot decree that early term abortion is murder, any more than decree 'assault' guns are prohibited..

Maybe you should direct us to the specific portion of the Constitution which actually forbids the individual states to enact a law prohibiting abortion. I'm not referring to the mental contortions performed by the Warren court in order to make it's predetermined edict appear to at least vaguely resemble a decision based on Constitutional content. I mean literal, textual support for that prohibition.

I find it ironic that you equate the judicially invented "right" to abort a fetus, which was accorded protection through judicial fiat by a sympathetic court without any visible Constitutional support but is vigorously defended by the courts, to the right to keep and bear arms which was accorded specific and clear Constitutional protection by the authors themselves but is not even tepidly defended by the vast majority of the judiciary. Can't you see the the irony of that equation?

I'm saying the state must follow our constitution in the writing of law

You obviously pick and choose which laws you deem Constitutionally correct based not on the clear intent of the authors, but on your own prejudices and nonsensical extremist libertarian ideology. That may be your idea of following the Constitution, but it isn't mine. Have a good day, I'm done with this thread.

[tpaine]

Three minutes after the lab tech combines egg & sperm, that combination has a constitutionally protected right to life? -- Get real, -- you are hyping the issue.

When then did you, for example, begin to exist? At what other point could you have possibly begun to exist other than at the beginning?

My rights to life, liberty & property did not begin until they were capable of being separated from my mothers rights, at viablity. That's the dilemma of abortion.

Do you believe that your mother had, or should have had the right to kill you at some point in your life?

At the early stages, any woman has an absolute constitutional right to refuse to be pregnant, as I understand it. As viabiliy becomes more certain, the state can step in and reasonably regulate abortion, under its 'compelling interest' police powers..

If yes, then that view doesn't seem logical to me. It seems self-defeating.

You refuse to admit that early term abortion is a moral dilemma, one the state has no power to control.

[epow]

Murder is a very clear, legal term used to describe the unlawful killing of a person with malice aforethought

I'm not a lawyer so i will defer to your knowledge of the subject. It has been my understanding that there are varying degrees of murder, and only the 1st or 2nd degrees required malice aforethought to qualify for those degrees. I will concede that the abortionist is probably concerned only with his or her fee and holds no conscious malice toward the victim of the homicidal act. Other than that one element, I still maintain that abortion meets every criteria which society at large has traditionally used to define murder.

You suggest the term homicide. I think that term is too benign for such a horrific act of violence against an innocent human being. I still consider it to be premeditated murder for hire.

[tpaine]

Our common law defines criminal acts. Our constitution protects us from overzealous interpretations of what is 'crime'.. The state must follow our constitution in the writing of law. They cannot decree that early term abortion is murder, any more than decree 'assault' guns are prohibited..

Maybe you should direct us to the specific portion of the Constitution which actually forbids the individual states to enact a law prohibiting abortion.

Fiat prohibitions [decrees] are forbidden by the provisions of the 14th, primarily. - Such rights need not be specifically enumerated of course, as seen by reading the 9th & 10th.

I'm not referring to the mental contortions performed by the Warren court in order to make it's predetermined edict appear to at least vaguely resemble a decision based on Constitutional content. I mean literal, textual support for that prohibition.

Maybe you should get help on reading the 9th.

I find it ironic that you equate the judicially invented "right" to abort a fetus, which was accorded protection through judicial fiat by a sympathetic court without any visible Constitutional support but is vigorously defended by the courts, to the right to keep and bear arms which was accorded specific and clear Constitutional protection by the authors themselves but is not even tepidly defended by the vast majority of the judiciary. Can't you see the the irony of that equation?

Yes I can, -- it seems everybody wants to ignore/violate certain specific parts of our constitution, according to their special zealotry.
I uphold all of it..[cept the 16th]

You obviously pick and choose which laws you deem Constitutionally correct based not on the clear intent of the authors, but on your own prejudices and nonsensical extremist libertarian ideology.

Your parting shot BS is obvious, but little else..

That may be your idea of following the Constitution, but it isn't mine. Have a good day, I'm done with this thread.

You call me an 'extremist' then bid me a mealy mouthed good day.. -- Bizarro.

[Diamond]

My rights to life, liberty & property did not begin until they were capable of being separated from my mothers rights, at viablity.

At the early stages, any woman has an absolute constitutional right to refuse to be pregnant, as I understand it.

You are saying that at some point ("viability", whatever that means, and which is nevertheless repudiated by Bolton) of your existence that you did not have certain inalienable rights, among which would have been the primary and ultimate inalienable right to your own life. Your propositions raise some obvious questions. First, what does "inalienable" mean anyway, if it's something can be taken away from you at some point of your existence? Or is it that first you don't have them and then suddenly at some unkown point you do have them? If that is the case, what is their source? Where do these inalienable rights come from? Don't you have intrinsic inalienable rights simply by virtue of your humanity? Or alternatively, do you think it is just by some operation of law?

Second, if your mother had some absolute or inalienable right to refuse to be pregnant (ignoring for the moment the use of the vague term, "pregnant") why should her her proported right to "not be pregnant" with you trump your own "right to life"?

Third, because parents used to be and sometimes still are considered in the law as being responsible for the care and nurture of their offspring, why should female parents only have the inalienble right to kill their children? Why should men not have the inalienable right to kill their children, too? What is fair and equitable, for example, about a woman being able to kill her male offspring, but a male not being allowed to kill his female offspring?

You refuse to admit that early term abortion is a moral dilemma, one the state has no power to control.

Of course I refuse to admit that unless a new human being threatens someone else's life, there is no right that trumps that individual's right to life. Absent such a case there is no moral dilemma because an individual's life is prior to his mother's "right not to be pregnant". Once he exists, she already is, so to speak. Parents have the moral (and legal, at or least until Roe and Bolton turned the law on its head) obligation to provide for the care and nurture of their children.

If states have no power to control this how then did the states control this prior to 1/22/1973?

Cordially,

[Diamond]

You originally entered the fray by criticizing me for the manner in which I replied to epow who initiated the discussion regarding unjust laws. My point then, as it is now, is that a person can be prosecuted for the violation of law that she/he/it deems unjust.

It goes without saying that as a practical matter, a person can be prosecuted for violating laws that one deems unjust. That is undeniably true.

My initial challenge to cp's article was using the term murder thus implying that some punishable crime was being committed...

Perhaps you, as Javelina, are using the term in a positivistic legal sense, whereas I have been using it in a natural law sense. Regarding the etymology of the term "murder" I offer the following:

murder

SYLLABICATION:	mur·der
PRONUNCIATION:	mûrdr
NOUN:	1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. 2. Slang Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder. 3. A flock of crows. See synonyms at flock1.
VERB:	Inflected forms: mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
TRANSITIVE VERB:	1. To kill (another human) unlawfully. 2. To kill brutally or inhumanly. 3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances. 4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language. 5. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.
INTRANSITIVE VERB:	To commit murder.
IDIOMS:	get away with murder Informal To escape punishment for or detection of an egregiously blameworthy act. murder will out Secrets or misdeeds will

--------------------------

murder - O.E. morðor "secret killing of a person, unlawful killing," also "mortal sin, crime, punishment, torment, misery," from P.Gmc. *murthran, from PIE base *mor-/*mr- "die." The spelling with -d- probably reflects influence of Anglo-Fr. murdre, from O.Fr. mordre, from M.L. murdrum, from the Gmc. root. Viking custom, typical of Gmc., distinguished morð (O.N.) "secret slaughter," from vig (O.N.) "slaying." The former involved concealment, or slaying a man by night or when asleep, and was a heinous crime. The latter was not a disgrace, if the killer acknowledged his deed, but he was subject to vengeance or demand for compensation...."

------------------------

The New Testament quotes Exodus 20:13 in Matthew 19:18, Mark 10:19, and Luke 18:20. In these verses, the Greek word used is phoneú. Like ratsách, this word also means to "murder" or "slay". It is used for the translating of the Hebrew ratsách because they both convey the thought of taking someone's life without cause.

With regard to your note about jury nullification, I remind you that the actions of the OJ jury certainly did not advance the case of justice.

Is this reminder a tacit admission of my point that the law and justice are not necessarily the same thing?:^)

Cordially,

[Old fashioned]

Don't waste your time debating these hypocrites. All you will accomplish is to help them promote their selfish agenda. Better to spend your time and energy to reelect Bush so that we can get judges appointed who will reinterpret the laws to outlaw abortions.
It's as simple as that!

[verity]

"...using the term in a positivistic legal sense, whereas I have been using it in a natural law sense...."

Exactly!!

[Coleus]

bttt

[cpforlife.org]

Well lookie here! Someone's been lurkin round da map.

Could not be happier. Tony Perkins is great. We are happy to see him at the helm of Family Research Council http://www.frc.org

[cpforlife.org]

Thanks! You are so right!

[MHGinTN]

"The state must follow our constitution in the writing of law." [Actually, that's incorrect because it is the subpreme court in whatever variation sits the benches at the time that determine what is lawful, what is 'constitutional.] "They cannot decree that early term abortion is murder, any more than decree 'assault' guns are prohibited." [But the nine black-robed oligarchs can establish law by fiat, and have, with such as with the Dred Scott decision ... and Roe and Doe and Bolton and Planned Parenthood v Casey, and Lawrence v Texas and Stenberg v Carhardt, , none of which decisions can be defended via the Constitution but are touted as 'the law of the land' because nine black robed individuals passed a judgment derived from their preferences rather than the Constitution.]