Posted on 12/19/2001 12:19:27 PM PST by Starmaker
"Feminists don't like me and I don't like them...I don't know why feminists have it out for me, but that's their problem, not mine." – Mel Gibson (star of Braveheart, The Patriot, Lethal Weapon; 100% pro-life)
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." – Mother Teresa
"I am dedicated to spending the rest of my life undoing the law that bears my name. I would like nothing more than to have this law overturned." – Norma L. McCorvey ("Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade)
"Thou shalt not kill" – The Holy Bible
"The decision nullifies a law, expressing the will of the people of Nebraska, that medical procedures must be governed by moral principles having their foundation in the intrinsic value of human life, including life of the unborn." – Justice Anthony Kennedy (dissent from Carhart vs. Stenberg, the 2000 case in which five other justices overturned a Nebraska law against partial-birth abortion, the procedure Justice Kennedy references)
"The inalienable right to life is found not only in the Declaration of Independence but also in the Constitution that every President is sworn to preserve, protect and defend.ÿ Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." – Ronald Reagan
"Each of us has a unique beginning, the moment of conception..." – Jerome Lejeune (Nobel Prize, Genetics)
"A Person is a Person, no matter how Small." – Dr. Seuss
As a pro-lifer, I have to acknowledge that not only does a prenatal baby's life begin at conception, but that there begins fatherhood also. It is at conception that the father and mother are conjoined to produce new life. It is at conception that the most beautiful thing on the planet, the G-d-blessed spark of innocent human life, begins it's journey through existence.
From that moment, every good father loves his baby, and is moved by a need to protect, defend, and care for her from that moment, through all the days of her life. This empathy, this compassion and emotional investment, is a society builder. It is what gives fathers the motivation to work, to build homes, and to make the world a safer place.
It must be sanctioned and endorsed by every legal vehicle possible.
And it is time to define, for once and for all, what "pro-life" is.
Pro-Life is Pro-Baby. It is the understanding that babies have rights, rights worth protecting.
Every baby has a right to grow old enough to...
...gurgle, and smile, and laugh, and do all the silly, adorable things that babies do...
...take those first, halting steps as toddlers do, more waddling than walking, offering heart-melting toothless grins in celebration of their own efforts...
...see a bird, or a tree, or a cloud for the first time, and in wide-eyed wonder, point chubby fingers at each new wonder of Creation, as they discover them...
...know the joy of being protected from all the dangers of the outside world, by someone who loves them more than anything in the world...
This and more, babies deserve.
And the very human life of every innocent, vulnerable, defenseless little pre-natal baby begins with the moment of conception.
Prior to conception, each of the parent's respective haploid gametes contains twenty-three chromosomes, only half of what is required to create new human life. Conception results in a single cell which contains forty-six chromosomes.
These forty-six chromosomes are not only human, but are in a combination distinctly, undeniably different from either parent.
This combination is the blueprint for every biological aspect of the new human's life, and will determine infinite characteristics of the new individual. We all began our unique and valuable lives exactly this way. It is at this point that the processes of life are set in motion. Were they not, there would be nothing to terminate...
Dependency is a quality that extends well into toddlerhood. At conception, the new human life is at once dependent, and defenseless, and utterly vulnerable.
This is science.
This is reality.
It is indisputable.
The anti-baby ice-cold euphemism of "choice" defies science and nature no less than it controverts human decency and morals.
In the name of nature and science, we must recognize the reality that each of our unique human lives begins at conception.
In the name of human decency and morals, the very human life of every defenseless, innocent, vulnerable little prenatal baby must be fully protected.
Legally.
Roe vs. Wade will be overturned during this presidency, given two more United States Supreme Court appointments by very pro-life President George W. Bush.
When that occurs over the next three years, the road will be paved to the enactment of a protective law, reading as follows:
"Where the mother's life is not in danger, the father of every baby consensually conceived shall have the legal right to prevent the abortion of his baby, from the point of conception through birth, provided that he is willing to support and raise the baby."
It is the right thing to do.
Since this essay began with quotes I agree with, I will close it with a quote I do not agree with, but which eerily echoes the position of those on the other side of this issue:
"It had nothing to do with humanity, it couldn't have; it was a mass..." – a reference to the Holocaust by Franz Stangl, Nazi commandant of extermination camps in Sobibor (March, 1942 -September, 1942) and Treblinka (September, 1942 - August, 1943).
Interviewed by Gitta Sereny in 1970, Stangl's comments later appeared in the book Into That Darkness: An Examination of Conscience (1983).
As for you religious fundamentalists (and there are MANY on this thread), I think you should understand that you have NO RIGHT to force your archaic beliefs on the rest of us. If your particular sect or denomination thinks that a tiny, practically invisible clump of cells in a womb is equal to a living, breathing human being, fine. If you believe that a "god" is going to send women to burn in some imaginary "hell" for having an abortion, fine. You can believe that kind of stuff all you want. But you have no right to force such beliefs on the rest of us. If you'd like to have a nice little theocracy where the sex police install cameras in every bedroom and investigate and prosecute women about abortion, then fine. You're free to leave the country any time you want. But the United States of America is a pro-choice country and you'd better get used to it.
yawn..............
We should hope so!
The thing that angers me the most, is that lawyers in the case of Roe vs. Wade encouraged their client to lie on the stand (she later admitted that she was not raped) and they were never found guilty of any crime. They should all be tried for murder. Murder has no statute of limitations.
The only reason Roe vs Wade won was the rape issue. Since there was no rape issue, they are all guilty of "premeditated murder".
We need to start holding people, especially lawyers accountable for their deceptions!!!
I'm in favor of a post-Roe Human Life Amendment. En route to that, there will need to be incremental measures put into place by law. A ban on partial-birth abortion, parental consent for minors, defunding Planned Parenthood, keeping the proposed "clinics" out of public schools...and V4F.
V4F is, in tandem with science and sympathy in favor of the prenatal baby. V4F offers a visible protagonist (the father), who is closely connected to the situation at hand.
It obliterates the "every child a wanted child" argument. Under V4F, every child is wanted, and supported, by the father.
It blows the myth of abortion being a "woman's issue". So long as pro-lifers are silent on V4F, abortion will be considered by the public-at-large a "woman's issue". As such, on some level, people will say, "Well, so long as abortions aren't forced..."
Many, many women subscribe to the NIMBY principle, saying that they would not personally have an abortion, but wouldn't stop others...V4F exposes the gyncentricity of this position.
I would pose to pro-lifers the following: the pro-life movement has failed in the courts and legislatures for 30 years. They have failed to endorse or even acknowledge the V4F position for 30 years. Society has paid the price for this twinned set of failures, and they are twinned. Abortion will never end, and a Human Life Amendment will never come about, until V4F is endorsed by the pro-life movement. It takes two to make a baby, but so long as pro-lifers are silent about one of those two, the father, it will appear that only one person was involved in conception, and that therefor the product of conception is the province of one person only. Keeping fathers/V4F out of the picture undermines the personhood of the prenatal baby for these reasons. It is not baby's rights vs. father's rights. It is that after 30 years of colossal failure by the pro-life movement's no-father approach, the baby's personhood needs to be endorsed by a visible, immediately involved protagonist: the father.
Pro-lifers refuse to engage this issue. All manner of red herrings are thrown out: well, the father was probably some irresponsible jerk, or somehow V4F would lead to C4M (when actually they are opposites), etc. etc.
Pro-lifers refuse to wake-up and endorse this issue.
And this is why we fail.
Your right, un-alienable, not in-alienable. Just checked my desktop copy of the D.O.I.
Yes Sir.
I had a page bookmarked that described the differences of those two Prefixes but, for some reason, that site has been pulled.
It stated, basically, that using 'IN' meant laws handed down by the hand of Man....
But, using the UN (as the prefix) meant handed down by the hand of God.
Although....I'm fairly certain, that this rule doesn't apply to the united nation's use of it (at least, I pray not!!).
This attacks a symptom, not the cause!
V4F is the best way to overcome that argument.
In the beginning, anyone not intmate connected with a given situation with be labeled "The State". Fathers are very intimately connected---emotionally by love for their baby, and legally by virtue of the fact that financial responsibility arises from determinations of paternity based upon the baby's DNA reflecting the fathers.
None can argue that that father's DNA is imparted at conception. Where begin responsibilities, there begin rights also. A father's responsibilities, even if arguably 9-months-deferred, begin with conception, because that is when his DNA, the basis of his financial liability, is imparted to his progeny.
Without an adult, intimately connected protagonist, it will continue to be easy for many to write off the unseen baby as an abstraction.
As to calling it a symptom, not a cause...I would cordially but emphatically dispute that. The core of the feminist movement is patricidal misandry, hatred of fathers and fatherhood. Just go to any feminist website, like now.org, and type the word father into their internal search engine. You will get back a plethora of feminist articles, all of them virulently anti-father.
This is the core of the opposition. It IS the cause. The more pro-abort a feminist is, the more inclined to father-bashing she is.
For more evidence, run a search on Feminists For Life. While this group is a minority within the larger feminist movement, their website is absent of two things that most feminist websites do have: father-bashing and a pro-abort stance. Again, the patricidally misandric father bashing and the pro-abort stance go together: either both are present, or both are missing.
This is the entire underpinning of the feminist pro-abort stance.
Trust me on this, if nothing else in all the world.
V4F is the best way to overcome that argument.
In the beginning, anyone not intmate connected with a given situation with be labeled "The State". Fathers are very intimately connected---emotionally by love for their baby, and legally by virtue of the fact that financial responsibility arises from determinations of paternity based upon the baby's DNA reflecting the fathers.
None can argue that that father's DNA is imparted at conception. Where begin responsibilities, there begin rights also. A father's responsibilities, even if arguably 9-months-deferred, begin with conception, because that is when his DNA, the basis of his financial liability, is imparted to his progeny.
Without an adult, intimately connected protagonist, it will continue to be easy for many to write off the unseen baby as an abstraction.
As to calling it a symptom, not a cause...I would cordially but emphatically dispute that. The core of the feminist movement is patricidal misandry, hatred of fathers and fatherhood. Just go to any feminist website, like now.org, and type the word father into their internal search engine. You will get back a plethora of feminist articles, all of them virulently anti-father.
This is the core of the opposition. It IS the cause. The more pro-abort a feminist is, the more inclined to father-bashing she is.
For more evidence, run a search on Feminists For Life. While this group is a minority within the larger feminist movement, their website is absent of two things that most feminist websites do have: father-bashing and a pro-abort stance. Again, the patricidally misandric father bashing and the pro-abort stance go together: either both are present, or both are missing.
This is the entire underpinning of the feminist pro-abort stance.
Trust me on this, if nothing else in all the world.
See #150, this thread.
Actually, Susan Smith aborted her first child in 1988 before her boys were born. They were really late term "choices."
On a 1990 Barbara Walters TV special, Gibson stated his opposition to birth control, infidelity and abortion. He said, "God is the only one who knows how many children we should have, and we should be ready to accept them. One can't decide for oneself who comes into this world and who doesn't. That decision doesn't belong to us."---Link
"A Person is a Person, no matter how Small."---Dr. Seuss
That quote has been used by pro-lifers a great deal, but the widow of Dr. Seuss has sued to stop its use (by pro-lifers) since she's pro-abortion. She says Dr. Seuss (now deceased) would agree with her.
43 Percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal in only a very few circumstances.
17 Percent of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.
That adds up to 60 Percent of Americans who believe that abortion should be illegal in all but a few circumstances (I am guessing rape, or life of the mother, but the poll doesn't specify).
(Just a warning, pcl is calling me a liar over this, so expect it to show up and do the same again here)
It looks to me like being pro-life would be a political winner for any candidates out there...hint hint...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/topics/abortion.asp
The more conditionals put into the public view, the better.
I wish you a New Year free of your sociopathic cyber-stalker.
:o)
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.