Preview: The 30th Anniversary of Abortion-On-Demand

CNSNews.com ^ | December 27, 2002 | Jeff Johnson

[Remedy]

January 22, 2003 will mark the 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision legalizing elective abortion during all nine months of pregnancy. As pro-abortion groups plan their celebrations, one of the founders of the pro-life movement looked to the future.

The "Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice" is a national alliance of liberal "faith groups" that works to keep abortion-on-demand legal. The group is planning a "convocation" to mark the Roe v. Wade anniversary entitled "From Generation to Generation: Celebrating 30 Years of Faithful Reproductive Choices."

Rev. Carlton Veazey, president and CEO of the group, blamed conservative Christians and Jews for the deep divide over the issue among Americans.

"The Religious Right has turned this basic human right [abortion] into a battleground for control of the country," he said in a news release announcing the group's planned party. "This celebration is a declaration that mainstream America will not allow them to impose their religious beliefs on the women and families of this nation."

But Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, told reporters during a Dec. 3 conversation outside the White House that backing for abortion is dwindling.

"We've tried abortion and it doesn't wear well with people," Terry said. "You don't see the fierce support for abortion that you did 15 or 20 years ago."

Reduced enthusiasm for abortion, Terry believes, is a function of both time and experience.

"I think that as a nation, we've experimented with abortion and we've found that it's a colossal failure," he theorized. "Slowly the country has been drifting to the pro-life position, saying, 'This isn't a good idea.' Mothers have been exploited and over 40 million children are dead."

Americans who reached voting age in the past decade, Terry noted, cannot remember a time when any abortion was illegal for any reason.

"For some of them, they take it for granted. For others of them, they're appalled that this is happening," Terry remarked. "With every generation, you're going to get people who are complacent because it's just a part of what they know. But you're also going to get people that grow up and say, 'How can this be happening?'"

Terry told the story of his adopted daughter Tila, who he believes is indicative of the future of the pro-life movement.

"Her mother was walking into an abortion clinic 18 years ago this fall to have her aborted. And I saw, I was standing there, and I begged for her life," Terry recalled. "She's a survivor. One in three kids her age have been killed. They're gone. It will fall to her and to her friends to rise up in defense of unborn children."

As more Americans learn about the realities of abortion, Terry believes they will choose the moral high ground, just as Americans have done in the past when confronted with choices about the rights of people who were considered less than human.

"It's like American slavery," he concluded. "People then said, 'Well, it's always been with us, but we've got to do something to stop it.'"

[Remedy]

Rev. Carlton Veazey, president and CEO of the group, blamed conservative Christians and Jews for the deep divide over the issue among Americans.

"The Religious Right has turned this basic human right [abortion] into a battleground for control of the country," he said in a news release announcing the group's planned party. "This celebration is a declaration that mainstream America will not allow them to impose their religious beliefs on the women and families of this nation."

But Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, told reporters during a Dec. 3 conversation outside the White House that backing for abortion is dwindling.

Statute	House Action	Senate Action	President's Action
Unborn Victims of Violence Act HR 503 S 480	Passed 4/26/01 Vote 252 - 172	Bottled up by Senator Daschle	Would Have Supported
Human Cloning Ban HR 2505 S 1899	Passed 7/31/01 Vote 265 - 162	Killed July 2002 by Senator Daschle	Would Have Supported
Ban on Abortions in Military Facilities	5/20/02 Vote 215 - 162 Supporting Ban	6/21/02 Vote 40 - 52 Did Not Support Ban	Supported Ban
Child Custody Protection Act HR 476	Passed 4/17/02 Vote 260 - 161	Bottled up by Senator Daschle	Would Have Supported
Born Alive Infant Protection Act HR 2175	Passed 3/12/02 Vote 380 - 15	Passed 7/18/02 Voice Vote	Signed Bill 8/05/02
Partial Birth Abortion Ban HR 4965	Passed 8/06/02 Vote 274 - 151	Bottled up by Senator Daschle	Is Supportive

 

Are unborn children human beings? Are they persons? No doubt about it. The following essays argue the pro-life case...

• When Do Human Beings Begin? -- by Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D. In this essay, former NIH bench research biochemist Dianne Irving demonstrates the scientific fact that the lives of human beings--and human persons--begin at conception.
• Personhood Begins At Conception -- by Peter Kreeft, Ph.D. Professor Kreeft explains what exactly a "person" is and why the various philosophical positions which deny that the unborn child is a person are themselves inadequate.
• Is the Unborn Less Than Human? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. In this essay, Dr. Beckwith lays out the scientific facts surrounding human development and explains why it does not make sense to argue that a human being is created at implantation, quickening, or birth.
• When Does a Human Become a Person? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. Continuing the previous essay, Dr. Beckwith demonstrates why other functional criteria given for personhood--such as sentience, brain development, and viability--are inadequate. He then refutes the "gradualist" position, which incorrectly asserts that the unborn becomes more and more human as the pregnancy progresses. Finally, he discusses the positions of various abortion and infanticide advocates like James Rachels, Mary Wollenkott, and Michael Tooley.
• Does Life Begin At Implantation? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. In this essay, Dr. Beckwith addresses the phenomena of monozygotic twinning, hydatiform moles, choriocarcinoma, blighted ova, cloning, and fertilization wastage. He then shows how these phenomena fail to disprove the position that human life begins at conception.
• Scientific and Philosophical Expertise: An Evaluation of the Arguments on Personhood -- by Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D. In this essay, biochemist Dianne Irving argues that positions which assert that early human embryos are not persons are based on inadequate philosophical principles and faulty scientific data.
• The Human Rational Soul in the Early Embryo -- by Stephen Heaney, Ph.D. In this essay, Professor Heaney discusses the various theories of "ensoulment" that permeate philosophical (and theological) discussions on abortion.
• A Survey of Arguments for Immediate versus Delayed Animation -- by Scott Sullivan. In this essay, Thomist Philosopher Scott Sullivan critically analyzes the theory of mediate animation.
• The Tiniest Humans -- an interview with the renowned geneticist Jerome Lejeune and the father of modern embryology, Sir Albert William Liley

Some abortion advocates are willing to concede that unborn children are human beings. Surprisingly enough, they claim that they would still be able to justify abortion. According to their argument, no person-no unborn child-has a right to access the bodily resources of an unwilling host. Unborn children may have a right to life, but that right to life ends where it encroaches upon a mother's right to bodily autonomy. The argument is called the bodyright argument, and it is refuted in the following essays...

• The Bodyright Argument: A Pro-life Response -- By Brian D. Parks. In this essay, your webmaster gives a comprehensive analysis of the bodyright argument, including a discussion of the various pro-abortion analogies to pregnancy, and a refutation of the positions of Philosophers Judith Thomson, Susan Mattingly, Patricia Jung, Frances Kamm, Margaret Little and others.
• The Changing Pro-Life Argument: Does the Humanity of the Unborn Matter Anymore? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. In this essay, Professor Beckwith introduces and refutes the famous argument from "bodily rights".
• A Woman's Right Over Her Body? -- by Stephen Schwarz, Ph.D. In an excerpt from his book The Moral Question of Abortion, Dr. Schwarz addresses arguments in defense of abortion that are based on a woman's "right" to control her own body.
• Unplugging a Bad Analogy -- by Doris Gordon. In this essay, Doris Gordon, the National Director of Libertarians For Life, refutes a famous argument put forth by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson.
• Abortionists, Violinists and Burglars -- by Christopher Kaczor, Ph.D. In this essay, Professor Kaczor addresses Thomson's arguments from a different angle.
• A Fetus is NOT a Parasite -- by Thomas L. Johnson, Ph.D. In this piece, chordate embryologist Dr. Thomas L. Johnson attacks the popular misconception that a human fetus is the equivalent of a biological parasite.
• Begging the Question -- by Edwin Viera. In this brief essay, Dr. Viera explains why the statement "a woman has a right to control her own body" begs the basic question in the abortion debate--is she only affecting her own body when she aborts?

Why would it be wrong to kill an adult? Why would it be wrong to kill a baby after it has been born? Questions like these seems trivial, but their answers are extremely important to the abortion debate. What many people fail to realize is that most of the arguments used to justify killing unborn children could be used with just as much force to justify killing newborn children and, in some cases, even full-grown adults. The wrongness of killing is discussed in the following essays...

• I Was Once a Fetus -- By Alexander Pruss. In this essay, mathematician and philosopher Dr. Alexander Pruss offers an identity based argument against abortion.
• The Real Problem with Abortion -- by Mark McNeil. In this essay, Mark McNeil examines two competing positions on the issue--the position of moderate pro-life advocate Don Marquis and the position of liberal abortion advocate Mary Anne Warren. McNeil concludes that neither position sufficiently explains why it is wrong to kill human beings, and introduces his own viewpoint.

Abortion as "Shedding Innocent Blood" & Lessons Toward Repentance ...

The "Equal Creation" principles in the Declaration of Independence were the cry of the anti-slavery crusade for 30 years. Today most evangelical leaders and many presidential candidates reference the same document and the Creator's "endowment of unalienable rights" in the fight against big government and abortion rights. What they fail to mention is that this document is also an instrument of judgment. They overlook its "execution" provisions. In its first paragraph, the very existence of the nation is pinned to the "laws of nature and nature's God." For Jefferson's contemporaries, this phrase meant the Romans 2:15 law written on every man's heart, whether Christian or not, as tested by the Christian Bible.

Abortion is the shedding of innocent blood. The blood of an unborn child is separate from that of its mother at 21days gestation and is a person from conception (Luke 1:42-43). As you know, killing such a child violates God's laws in the Decalogue (Exodus 20:13). God hates such killing (Proverbs 6:16-17) and it defiles the land (Numbers35:33). God is personally pledged to avenge the shedding of innocent blood (Deuteronomy 32:43).

[mc5cents]

Thanks for the post.

This is a good site for info also. Answers to Pro-Choice arguments

[Remedy]

Should be broadcast on PBS daily.

[TLBSHOW]

Statement On AMA Endorsement Of Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Monday, May 19, 1997
Press Release Of Senator Bill Frist, M.D.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- As the only physician in the Senate, I am proud of the American Medical Association’s decision to support the ban on partial birth abortions. This is the strongest medical confirmation yet that this so-called medical procedure is brutal, inhumane, and medically unnecessary. As I said on the floor of the United States Senate, any provider who performs a partial birth abortion has violated the Hippocratic principle, “First do no harm.”

The President has already been standing on shaky ground in his efforts to explain his intent to veto once again a ban of this grisly and unnecessary procedure. With these technical changes and the endorsement of the AMA, it’s time for the President to do the right thing -- it’s time for him to sign this bill.

http://frist.senate.gov/press-item.cfm?id=185452

[cpforlife.org]

Hello Remedy,
I want to thank you. I believe that comprehensive education on the sanctity of life is the only way to end the cultre of death. When I read your excellent citations, I had to post for the first time. Joined FR March 2002; been reading for years. Thanks and God bless!

[Remedy]

Christian Patriots For Life Goals of the Pro-Life movement:

1. To pass a Constitutional amendment that absolutely protects all innocent life—from conception to natural death.

 

Overturning Supreme Court Decisions with Constitutional Amendments

The Supreme Court's power of judicial review allows the court the power of interpreting the Constitution and determining whether any act of the Congress, the executive, or the state governments is in violation of the Constitution. Four of the twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution have overturned Supreme Court decisions. Two other proposed but unratified amendments also sought to overturn decisions of the Supreme Court.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to the right to life. (Introduced in House)

HJ 20 IH

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 20

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to the right to life.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 14, 2001

Mr. OBERSTAR (for himself, Mr. AKIN, Mr. ARMEY, Mr. BAKER, Mr. BARCIA, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Ms. HART, Mr. HAYES, Mr. HULSHOF, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky, Mr. PICKERING, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. SHOWS, Mr. TANCREDO, and Mr. TERRY) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to the right to life.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to be valid only if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of final passage of this joint resolution:

ARTICLE--

`SECTION 1. With respect to the right to life, the word `person' as used in this article and in the fifth and fourteenth articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States applies to all human beings irrespective of age, health, function, or condition of dependency, including their unborn offspring at every stage of their biological development.

`SECTION 2. No unborn person shall be deprived of life by any person: Provided, however, That nothing in this article shall prohibit a law permitting only those medical procedures required to prevent the death of the mother.

`SECTION 3. The Congress and the several States shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'.

HUMAN LIFE AMENDMENT

2. A Supreme Court that acknowledges the personhood of the unborn, thus guaranteeing their protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Impeaching Federal Judges:A Covenantal And Constitutional Response To Judicial Tyranny

• The Rights of the Unborn from Common Law to Constitutional Law

• The Rights of the Unborn: The Constitutional Challenge to Roe v. Wade

• The Rights of the Unborn: The Constitutional Issues

The Ex-abortionists:Why They Quit

3. Transforming the culture: From one of death to Life.

Antonin Scalia and His Critics: The Church, the Courts, and the Death Penalty Antonin Scalia replies:

What the "pro-choice" American does not believe is that a human fetus is as fully a human life as Uncle Charlie.

Pro-Life education

[Faith]

Thanks for all your hard work on this topic. It is reported (Focus on the Family Magazine, January 2003) that Norma McCorvey (Roe of Roe v. Wade) and Sandra Cano (Doe of Doe v. Bolton) are both trying to take their cases back to the Supreme Court to have them overturned. Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that "Upon such terms as are just, a motion can be made by a party and the judgment will be set aside." The abortionist crowd will not be able to do a thing about it. Both women are born-again Christians and are completely against abortion. Essentially they were used as pawns in both of these landmark cases. This should pull another brick out of the abortion foundation. I hope I live to see the glorious day when the whole thing comes tumbling down. God bless you for your efforts to keep us informed.

[Remedy]

Family.org -- HeartLink -- June HeartLink

Affidavit for Sandra Cano

Affidavit for Norma McCorvey

Legal Strategy

[Salvation]

** it’s time for him to sign this bill.**

Well, Dr. Frist, we shall see if you get it brought up in the Senate.......OK?

[Salvation]

Priests for Life

Updated daily

As of today -- 41,980,868 -- Number of babies killed by abortion since January 22, 1973

[Salvation]

**As of today -- 41,980,868 -- Number of babies killed by abortion since January 22, 1973**

What a sad statistic to post one day after the Feast of the Holy Innocents (Saturday,
and for today, the Feast of the Holy Family, Jesus, Mary, Joseph

[TLBSHOW]

Here is his last thoughts on the matter at his web site. So ML Frist, its time right?

Frist Urges Senate To "Listen To The Facts" On Partial Birth Abortion


Thursday, September 17, 1998
Press Release Of Senator Bill Frist, M.D.
print friendly version
back one page



WASHINGTON, D.C. -- At a press conference today to discuss the facts about partial birth abortion, U.S. Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) made the following statement:

“On this important issue we’re once again forced to vote with our conscience. I’ve spent a significant amount of time researching the realities of partial birth abortion and still come up with the same conclusions; regardless of what the President has said, partial birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a women -- a fact substantiated by many health care professionals -- and it’s a procedure which crosses our nation’s moral threshold.

“With the reintroduction of the partial birth abortion ban legislation in the Senate, we have the opportunity once again to right a wrong. We must heed the will of the American people as they call on us to listen not to political advisors or radical interest groups, but to our conscience. As a physician, I believe that partial birth abortions cannot and should not be categorized with other medical procedures -- or even other abortions. We must ignore the propaganda and listen to the facts. For the sake of women, their children and our future as a society, we must put a stop, once and for all, to partial birth abortion.”

http://frist.senate.gov/press-item.cfm?id=185939

[jwalsh07]

MARCH FOR LIFE

Every Jan 22 in Washington, DC. Be there or be square.

[jwalsh07]

[TLBSHOW]

bump

[Remedy]

partial birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a women -- a fact substantiated by many health care professionals

PHysicians'Ad-hoc Coalition for Truth

• Partial-Birth Abortions: Medical Necessity? Medical Nonsense

 

 

[Coleus]

Every Jan 22 >>>

except saturdays and sundays.