Posted on 03/29/2004 9:57:02 AM PST by Caleb1411
It must be some form of insanity. In the year 2004, the U.S. Senate is defining what's growing in the uterus of a pregnant woman.
And it did, in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act:
"d) As used in this section, the term 'unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term 'child in utero' or 'child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
We knew that. When a woman is pregnant, she's going to have a baby. Not a puppy or a kitten. A human baby.
We know that if something happens during the 9-months gestation and the child isn't born, the woman loses her baby. Not a blob of tissue, not a fetus – her baby, a tiny human being.
The wonder of birth is daunting. Yet it's not simple and neither are the problems dealing with the "dilemma" of pregnancy – wanted and unwanted.
When sperm and egg unite, a new human being begins to grow and develop. Everything the mature human being will be is encompassed in that tiny embryo from the moment of fertilization.
If the new life is wanted, it's called a "baby." The mother takes care of herself, her doctor prescribes and cares for "two" patients – the mother is told not to smoke, drink, use drugs, and the family prepares to welcome a new member.
But if the new life isn't wanted, it's a fetus and has no rights. It can be eliminated – chemically expelled or pulled, torn or cut from the womb. Development is cut short and its life ended.
This is the simple fact of abortion on demand, the law since Roe v. Wade, 31 years ago.
Is that killing, in the eyes of the law? No. Is it murder, mayhem or battery? No. Does it invoke the laws against cruelty to children? No.
It's legal because the woman is primary. Under Roe, the new human growing inside her has no rights.
When Roe changed the law, most people thought of abortion as happening very early in pregnancy when the "baby" was not visually identifiable as human. But science and technology changed that.
The "mass of tissue" argument became harder to defend when it was clearly seen that there was a little human body in there, with heartbeats and brainwaves.
When the reality of partial-birth abortions became public, there was an outcry that it was infanticide. Clearly, removing the brain of a near-term child and crushing the skull before it was entirely out of the birth canal was a perversion of the initial sales pitch of abortion advocates.
Then there was Laci Peterson and Conner, the pregnant woman and her 8-month, unborn son, who were murdered. Her husband faces double murder charges.
Pro-abortion feminists boiled into a lather: If the unborn child was "murdered," it was given the status of a person. And we all know abortion doesn't involve "a person," otherwise the law gets sticky.
Sticky indeed, and that's how the Senate came to vote last week, 61-38, to approve the Unborn Victims Bill. The president is expected to sign it.
It states that if a pregnant woman is attacked during a federal crime, the assailant can be prosecuted for separate offenses against the woman and her unborn child, regardless of how far along the pregnancy has progressed. Twenty-eight states have similar laws.
Anyone who believed women politicians would be more gentle and loving should know that both California women senators, Boxer and Feinstein, and New York's Clinton voted against the bill.
Abortion-rights advocates preach that abortion is the only issue in the presidential election. To them, the right of women to choose to kill their unborn takes precedence over everything else.
We're at a point in time when our very survival is at stake in a battle against terrorism and Islamist fundamentalism. It's a battle against people who hate us for our beliefs, our culture and our freedoms. Their stated goal is to change us into a religious Islamic state.
It's astonishing that feminists are willing to gamble at such high stakes. Don't they realize Islam opposes abortion? Do they really want women veiled, uneducated and regarded as chattel?
The truth is, they don't care. They want abortion.
We need a president who knows what's at risk and will fight to protect it. Our freedom is at risk. Without that, we have nothing. I'd rather be free and yes, even free to argue in a political venue about the boundaries of abortion, than vote for the real possibility of losing everything.
That could happen.
Pity the ranting pro-abortion feminists – it would be a Pyrrhic victory indeed.
Uh huh. I used to be a foregone conclusion that when marriage was discussed, it was between a man and a woman.
Since marriage will someday be defined as any physical entity with any other physical entity, it just stands to reason that someday some woman (man?) is going to be sue for the right to implant his significant other's (dog, cat, orangutan) fetus.
It may be that the court is actually looking out farther than normal. ...except for the obvious implication to abortion.
If 80% of the "women" who are getting abortions are under the age of 18, then they are actually children killing their unborn children.
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.