Posted on 06/08/2003 5:44:03 AM PDT by RJCogburn
AFTER Roe v. Wade, 30 years crept by before New Hampshire placed a single restriction on abortion. Last week, the Legislature passed a bill requiring, in most cases, that parents be notified before an underage daughter can have an abortion.
Once Gov. Craig Benson signs the bill as promised, New Hampshire will lose its dubious distinction of being the only state in the country with no restriction on a procedure that is becoming increasingly more difficult to justify as the years go by.
As more time passes since the U.S. Supreme Court decision forbidding states from outlawing abortion, the harder it becomes to defend abortion as either a privacy issue or a woman’s right.
With each passing year and subsequent study on pregnancy, science discredits those who contend that the content of a woman’s uterus is a mere clump of cells, an appendix of the mother, something with no potential for life without a nine-month commitment from a woman.
Babies born in the second trimester, when abortion is considered legally acceptable because the fetus supposedly isn’t viable, now routinely survive and thrive. Unwanted embryos created in laboratories truly look like clumps of cells, but are adopted and transplanted into women who have trouble conceiving.
Such examples of viability were unthinkable when Roe v. Wade was handed down. Science can change social thinking so much in three decades. This is not just a pro-life viewpoint. Even Newsweek notes in tomorrow’s edition the relationship between science and abortion politics.
Thirty years from now, a woman seeking to end her unwanted pregnancy might be told by her doctor that the 4-week-old life inside her could be removed and given to a good adoptive mother that very same day - with no more physical inconvenience than a first-trimester abortion, and with far less emotional duress than traditional 20th century adoption.
What will a woman say then? “I understand you can remove this fetus from me and give him or her to a good home, but it’s my right to have this fetus removed and then killed instead.” Surely women won’t be that black-hearted in 2033?
Even in 2003, it’s becoming embarrassing to demand abortion whenever, wherever and however.
In Washington last week, Democrats joined Republicans in Congress to pass a ban on partial-birth abortions. The more Congress learned about how doctors deliver second- and third-trimester fetuses - who often are viable on their own - halfway out of the mother only to stab them in the base of the skull with surgical scissors, the less sincerely Congress could defend canards like “a woman’s right” and “medical privacy.” Partial-birth abortion is no different than infanticide, and Congress tacitly admits this.
With every passing day between 1973 and 2003, science has helped blur the difference between abortion and infanticide. Thanks to an expanding field of research on prenatal care, society is coming to regard the pre-born baby as a real baby.
Sonogram pictures of one’s pre-born kids are everywhere these days. They are pinned to office bulletin boards, placed in picture frames on the desk, slipped into plastic sleeves in the wallet. Family members and colleagues pass these fuzzy black and white images around with glee, and usually having learned the baby’s sex from the sonogram, talk about “Caitlin” or “Max” as though the child was already cradle-able. Is it OK to abort Caitlin or Max?
Upon learning they’re pregnant, women nowadays don’t quit working, but they do quit smoking and having their hair colored, lest the chemicals interfere with fetal development. A woman who enjoys a glass of wine while she’s pregnant is often forced to defend herself, as onlookers grow wide-eyed at the sight of such “child abuse.” But a “dilation and evacuation” (aka partial-birth abortion) procedure wouldn’t be considered child abuse?
Equalization of the sexes has brought fathers out of waiting rooms and into delivery rooms in the past 30 years. Fathers are expected to show up for every sonogram appointment, to attend birthing classes, and to coach delivery. “We’re pregnant,” you hear couples say. Coed baby showers are becoming the norm.
How can a woman then turn around and claim, “Ultimately, it’s my body,” when society is finally acknowledging it’s a third person’s body in question, for which two other bodies are equally responsible?
Although New Hampshire’s parental notification bill addresses the relationship of the pregnant woman to her parents, and not the pregnant woman to her pre-born child, it’s still a baby-step in the right direction for the Granite State. Perhaps it should not be surprising that it took 30 years of science and societal change to move a state so practiced in skepticism.
We're right. We know we're right. And it's just a matter of time before an overwhelming majority of Americans will come to see how right we've been all along. And when that happens, Republicans will be in the catbird seat for eons.
Let's do what we can to make sure most of those Republicans are not "Republicans for Choice", or "Log Cabin Republicans" or "Bloomberg Republicans", "Giuliani Repubicans" or other RINOs.
We need to stand our ground and let those groups decide just how important slicing and dicing innocent little human beings in the comfort of the womb is to them.
And exactly what is that difference?
Good God...
"Good God... "
Don't have an answer, huh.
I would say that the WHOLE BABY loses.
Actually, since this is first degree murder, a death sentence would be more appropriate in both examples. The abortionists should also be charged.
Im most cases though, negligent homicide/manslaughter would be more appropriate for the mothers since they were fed a lifetime of propaganda that the unborn aren't sentient beings.
No kidding! And did you figure that out all by yourself.
And on that point we are in agreement assuming that the accused has been giving all of their constitutional protections, and tried in a court of competent jurisdiction by a jury of their peers. Once that has occurred and they have been found guilty based on factual evidence presented to the court, they then deserved to be punished. Moreover, for the crime of murder they deserved to be punished in the harshest terms.
” One is guilty, the other is innocent.”
I’m not sure of the point you are trying to make here as in the first part you a relating to a living, breathing sentient being who has full capacity to do right or wrong and therefore can be found to be innocent or guilty. In the second part you are relating to an unborn fetus who has no capacity to do either right or wrong and so therefore can not be found to be either innocent or guilty of anything. Your comment does not make any sense.
But then again the pro life movement tends to frame their positions in illogical emotional terms. For example some posters assertions earlier on in this thread that abortion constitutes murder is just patently false. Murder is a statutory offence that can only be perpetrated on a living human being that has rights, i.e. a person who exists outside of the womb.
Now you may feel that is a form of murder, and I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but the fact is legally it isn’t. So, try to frame your arguments on fact, not beliefs. Accusing people of heinous crimes, for which they have no criminal liability, and other demeaning and scurrilous remarks is not the way to win someone over to your side.
And keep in mind that it is not the objective goal of the pro life movement that I have an objection too, it is the methodology they employ, which has been a complete failure for the last 30 + years, that I have an objection too.
I am old enough to remember when Rowe v Wade became the law. And there was much wailing and gnashing of the teeth, and many claims that the law was unconstitutional and would not stand. Yea right, 30 years down the road and the pro-life movement has produced zero results.
Perhaps it is time for the radical pro lifers to take a hard look at themselves and take a break from judging others for awhile. However, I seriously doubt that will ever happen.
See post #35 And sorry it's 422 words. I don't develop arguments in simple yes and no propositions.
innocence \i-ne-sens\ n 1 : blamelessness; also : freedom from legal guilt 2 : guilelessness, simplicity; also : ignorance
(C) 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (C) 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
I'm of the opinion that you've failed to frame the argument the way you would like the strawman to stand. The preborn are human, alive, individual, a separate life from the life supporting host, and when the brain begins functioning to direct the coherence of the organism, aware.
How about acknowledging the unborn to be human beings, alive and in third trimester aware. How would such individuals be compared to convicted criminals regarding the intentional killing of each, one by the state the other by a serial killer called an abortionist, protected by the state?
one by the state the other by a serial killer called an abortionist"
You have done an excellent job of demonstrating the point I brought forth in post #35 where I stated:
"So, try to frame your arguments on fact, not beliefs. Accusing people of heinous crimes, for which they have no criminal liability, and other demeaning and scurrilous remarks is not the way to win someone over to your side."
You seem to be unaware that abortion doctors are not serial killers. If they were in fact serial killers, they would be arrested.
Thanks for helping to support my argument.
serial \sir-e-el\ adj 1 : appearing in parts that follow regularly 2 : effecting a series of similar acts over a period of time ; also : occurring in such a series serially adv
(C) 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (C) 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
serial \sir-e-el\ adj 1 : appearing in parts that follow regularly (a ~ story) 2 : effecting a series of similar acts over a period of time (a ~ killer); also : occurring in such a series serially adv
(C) 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (C) 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
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.