Posted on 05/14/2003 11:37:08 PM PDT by victim soul
The National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) has remained silent on the issue of "fetal murder" until the Laci and Connor Peterson cases, which will soon be prosecuted under California law as double murder. Although N.O.W. has attempted to distance itself from the pronouncement by one of its affiliates that opposes the charge of murder in the case of Laci's unborn child, in virtually all instances of abortion N.O.W. remains fully committed to Roe v. Wade, aggressively advancing the notion that abortion is the exclusive right of the mother. Typically they have cloaked abortion in the euphemisms, "choice," and "women's rights," spinning reality and politicizing the issue.
There are a number of fundamental problems with "choice."
· First, underlying "choice" is the premise that a fetus is neither human nor alive, both of which contradict objective reality.
· Second, "choice" confers absolute power to a pregnant female over a life within her, supported by her, but which in every case has totally separate identity from her. In short a fetus is "not her body."
· Third, "choice" diminishes the value placed on human life that has long been a basic premise of Western civilization. "Choice," reduces the inherent value of life to nothing and in the process denigrates the Declaration ofIndependence and undermines the same Constitution upon which "choice," through Roe v. Wade, relies.
· Fourth, "choice" effectively destroys women's historic (with notable exceptions) role as society's guardians of sexual morality, logically turning them into objects of sensual pleasure, a fact borne out both by divorce rates and entertainment industry profits. Concomitantly, female "choicers" undermine, if not destroy societal respect for themselves at the moment that they are endeavoring to enhance their respect and political power.
· Fifth, "choice" has the practical effect of reducing humanity to the level of animals, a prospect that may bode well for atheists, but denies the beliefs and rights of the majority in the United States.
When an unborn child is killed at any stage of development, under N.O.W.'s operative premise, the mother or parents should have no recourse. Succinctly put, N.O.W.'s position inherently is, "Sorry, but that's too bad." On the other hand, assuming that N.O.W. supports California law that "killing a fetus is murder," N.O.W. is confronted with a logical dichotomy where the operative issue is not the killing but the underlying motivation.
In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court "danced on the head" of the proverbial pin when it crafted its controversial decision, albeit after weighing available information, legal precedent, philosophy, religion and science. But, it sidestepped the central issue, the issue of when life begins. The Court declared:
· "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
Whether or not the Court and the proponents of abortion like it, the Court's admission of its ignorance is central to the debate and fatally undermines its controversial decision. It is evident that the Court abrogated its responsibility when it chose to embrace "political correctness" of the era over bedrock Constitutionality. The Court based its decision on the right of privacy contained in the Fourth Article of Amendment, which states:
· "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
By combining the right of privacy with its acknowledged ignorance of the "ultimate" issue of "when does life begin," it sentenced millions to a death based on legal fiction rather than objective reality. In its eagerness to pander, it has unwittingly or otherwise established the additional notion that "private murder" including euthanasia and suicide, may well be Constitutional while violating the right of Habeas Corpus as well as riding roughshod over the Tenth Article of Amendment
N.O.W., Roe v. Wade and Laci Peterson, Part II by Col. Bob Pappas, USMC, Ret.
Rather than decide Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court would have served the nation best by sustaining the provisions of the Tenth Amendment, which states:
· "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
But, "we are where we are" and the issue refuses to go away. The murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn baby once again focuses the nation's attention on whether or not a pregnant woman's unborn child should be accorded protection of the law. N.O.W. argues that a fetus does not merit protection, but California law states in Section 187 (a):
· "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought."
Does that make California's law unconstitutional? How can California enforce the provisions of Roe v. Wade and simultaneously make killing an unborn child, murder? It is this writer's opinion that this part of California law is legal schizophrenia and is unconstitutional on its face. Either Roe v. Wade is Constitutional or it is murder to kill an unborn child, it cannot be both.
In the purely logical context N.O.W.'s argument is correct, that is, given Roe v. Wade a fetus is unprotected. But in defending its logic, N.O.W. puts itself at odds with the overwhelming majority of Americans and in the process, marginalizes itself even further. It has been well established by medical science that an unborn child is a living being. For N.O.W. or anyone to argue otherwise may make legal sense under Roe v. Wade, but it denies biological and objective fact, which itself raises serious questions about the veracity of the "Law."
In a May 6th, 2003 decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court in a logically tortured argument stated,
· "We are persuaded that a five week old.fetus.constitutes a part of the mother's body and, therefore, is a ''member'' of her body."
then proceeds to dash its own argument by stating,
· "we are unwilling to presume that the legislature, in enacting §§ 53a-70a (a) (2) and 53a-59 (a) (2), sought to protect a person's ear, tongue and skin but not a developing fetus living within, and physically attached to, the mother."
If the "developing fetus living within, and physically attached to, the mother" is real and alive, which it irrefutably is, then it is not a part of the mother's body, and the court even accedes to the fact that it is "living within" the mother. Therefore, since the "fetus" is living and developing within a mother, and since it possesses different DNA than that of the mother, and thus has its own identity, the court belies its own statement that it is a part of the mother's body. The only logical and also irrefutable conclusion that can and must be reached is that the "fetus" within the mother is a living, developing being which a narrow segment of society through the Courts and absent Legislative courage to change, condemns to death by summary abortion
N.O.W., Roe v. Wade and Laci Peterson, Part III
by Col. Bob Pappas, USMC, Ret.
N.O.W. and others argue that denying a woman's absolute "right to abortion" is unconstitutional while simultaneously denying the right of a living, developing human entity to live. Where should society draw the line between "individual rights" and "individual responsibilities?"
It is the writer's opinion that there must be an even handed balance between individuals' "right" to engage in sexual activity, and those same individuals "responsibility" for the results or product of that activity. Succinctly stated, "individual responsibility for individual actions." This may seem a novel idea to liberals in general, but for eons it worked infinitely better than the orgy of sex and shame of the past four decades.
Among other things, the Connecticut Supreme Court decision noted earlier is patently discriminatory. In its tortured logic, it effectively rendered a decision that made male abortion rights non-existent. The Court did so by offering full protection to the "slut" who decided after two previous abortions that she could not abort again, against the "defendant's" desire for an abortion in the instant case. As an aside, much has been argued about "women's rights" and "choice," but what of males' rights? It is ironic that in an era that feminist extremists are attempting to resurrect the defunct Equal Rights Amendment, that women hold the legal "trump card" as it pertains to life or death of an unborn child, at least the State of Connecticut.
One has to ask, "is America better off, are women better off, are children better off since Roe v. Wade?" This writer's answer is: If one believes that "choice" makes the nation a proud beacon of liberty and justice for all; if one believes that the health and well being of the approximately 30 million women who have aborted a child is in any way improved; if one believes that the agonizing, abortion-for-profit of approximately 30 million [43 million +] unborn children makes those children better off, that person lives in factual, logical, moral and ethical wasteland.
Society would be far more compassionate if it undertook teaching and compassionate enforcement of long-standing, basic moral principles rather than continue to perpetrate the present holocaust upon the weakest among us, the unborn. But, political liberals eschew that approach, thus enabling the fallacious notion that sexual behavior is inconsequential; and which, in the final analysis unmasks their vaunted populist, "compassionate" image as both blatantly hypocritical and evil.
Theirs is the view long advanced by Hugh Hefner on the one hand and one would not guess, but yes, Bill O'Reilly on the other that "consenting adults," whether heterosexual or homosexual, should be able to engage in any sexual activity they wish in the privacy of their abodes with the following unstated, underlying premise: "without regard to public consequences that may flow there from."
However, the facts are that sooner or later nearly all sexual, morally illicit contact results in public involvement, as a minimum through tax dollars. For example, in the case of heterosexuals the public becomes involved in the social and monetary life cycle costs of bastard children. In the case of homosexuals, the public bears the staggering costs of treating among others, such diseases as AIDS, as well as the psychological and spiritual defects that results from inherently perverted, sexual contact.
Apart from longstanding, basic moral imperatives that Hefner's and other political liberals' philosophy tramples, it is fact that taxpayers get soaked to the tune of tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars annually to deal with the results of their hedonistic philosophy. Whereas Hefner, the entertainment industry and others have become wealthy by fostering this spate of latter day hedonism, including N.O.W. by politicizing it, and the abortion industry by "dealing" with it, it is time that taxpayers, who end up with the financial "booby prize," stood up and said, "Enough! Enough of the human carnage, enough societal decay, enough of a virulent, vicious, vocal minority dictating to the benevolent, tolerant, silent majority!
The hedonistic, free ride on our tax dollars is over!"
Semper Fidelis
What do you think about this article? Write a letter to the editor at: http://www.bulletinboards.com/view.cfm?comcode=gulf1msw
Copyright © May 13, 2003, by Robert L. Pappas. With proper attribution, this essay may be quoted and redistributed.
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
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.