Posted on 04/20/2003 7:16:19 AM PDT by Mark Felton
Edited on 05/07/2004 7:49:16 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The head of the National Organization for Women's Morris County chapter is opposing a double-murder charge in the Laci Peterson case, saying it could provide ammunition to the pro-life lobby.
"If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder," Morris County NOW President Mavra Stark said on Saturday.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailyrecord.com ...
As far as I'm concerned, there's never been any doubt; but this time, they've proven it beyond any shadow of a doubt. NOW's entire defense of abortion is based on a woman's right to choose. Well, Laci Peterson did not choose to have an abortion. She chose to carry her baby to term and give birth to him, but that baby is dead because her husband killed her. So a woman's right to choose has absolutely nothing to do with this case.
A woman's right to choose has always been a false argument. If it were a viable argument, NOW wouldn't have to argue that a fetus isn't a human being. If a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy, then whether or not a fetus is a person is beside the point. But NOW tries to justify a woman's right to choose based on the claim that a fetus isn't a person. So that's the core of their argument: NOT that a woman has the right to choose in and of itself, but that abortion isn't murder because a fetus isn't a person. So the matter of choice is secondary and irrelevant.
What NOW wants is abortion for its own sake, plain and simple, and they want it because it is infant sacrifice dedicated to their false goddess. They are simply practicing the same infant sacrifice that was practiced centuries ago by pagans. And they attempt to justify the concept by disguising it as a woman's right to choose. They've brainwashed many women by framing the issue as one of not allowing men to tell them what they can or cannot do. But by opposing the double murder charge against SP, they've revealed that their argument in favor of abortion has absolutely nothing to do with a woman's right to choose, because that so-called right is not involved in Connor's death at all. Laci chose to give him life, not to abort him, and her choice was negated when her husband murdered her.
Um, yeah. That pretty much sums it up.
Do a Google search on "partial birth abortion" to find the answer to your question. Then prepare to scream out loud and be as disgusted and angry as you ever have been in your life.
If it were a perfect world and folks strove to "get along", the pro-abortionists would give up trying to improve their lives by having others die.
It's pretty much the same as the modern practice of abortion inasmuch as it's done for the same reasons - to improve one's life by killing the innocent.
Wait, does this mean that because killing someone in self defense is legal, any time someone kills someone else they could call it self defense?
Going "beyond" killing abortionists and their assistants has happened HOW MANY TIMES?
Where could I find out that information anyway - or, were you referring to abortionists getting killed - that's happened 5 or 6 times, and at least 1 of those involved a street robber who scragged one of these guys on his way through a sleazy part of town to get a bucket of beer!
Frankly, I can't remember having ever read of a single case of a "patient" being killed other than the baby, although there are those situations where the abortionist kills'em both. Have you?
Actually, I cannot see that reasonable people can disagree, assuming that one believes murder is wrong. If murder is defined as the unjustifiable killing of a Homo sapiens then abortion is undeniably murder.
The Supreme Court in Roe v Wade did use the constitutional issue of a woman's right to privacy in its decision. IMO they spelled out what is not an unlawful killing of a human being or fetus, and does not consider whether it is justified or not, just whether a prohibition on abortion is constitutionally allowed or not. Unjustifiable is different than unlawful.
As for some of the other comments, challenging my morality, compassion or knowledge of death, I suggest people realize that opinions do differ, people have different life experiences (you all are not privy to mine to make judgements) and laws are different from mores, ethics or beliefs, religious or otherwise. Emotion seems to run hard and fast on this issue leaving normal discussion impossible. As quoted in Rv.W,
We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion.
In addition, population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.
Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection. We seek earnestly to do this, and, because we do, we have inquired into, and in this opinion place some emphasis upon, medical and medical-legal history and what that history reveals about man's attitudes toward the abortion procedure over the centuries. We bear in mind, too, Mr. Justice Holmes' admonition in his now-vindicated dissent in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 76 (1905):
"[The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States."
Whether the law is correct or not and whether slavery was right or not or whether making birth control illegal in some states(anyone know we had laws like that?) was right or not recognizes the fact that laws can and do change. There are many laws I do not feel are "right", but I don't call people that comply with those laws murderers or criminals, but instead give my opinion that the law is wrong....before one can aid in commiting a crime, the aided act must be a crime... .You want to change the law try amending the Constitution or the Supreme Court.....
For those of you discussing the fetus issue, the Calif Penal Code sec 187 defines it as such:
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. (b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act which results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply: (1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 25950) of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon's certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not. (3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus. (c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.
In answer to your post 211:
Re: Wanted vs. unwanted--
I once saw a debate between Phyllis Schlafly and Sarah Weddington (lie-yar for "Roe") in which she said a fetus is a baby if it is wanted. It is solely the perogative of the mother.
I see we've slipped quite a ways down that slope.
The devil wants his human blood, don't you know?
Thanks for the ping, Mr. S!
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.