Science is changing the abortion debate

NH Sunday News ^ | 6/8/03 | Bernadette Malone

[Kerberos]

"The following is the actual way the entry reads in the dictionary:"

And your dictionary definition is correct. Now look up the word killer, put the two together, and see what you get.

[Kerberos]

"Are you trying to argue that the preborn are not alive individual human beings? "

No I am not arguing that they are not alive human beings. I am arguing that the law does not see them as alive human beings. See my post #4

[MHGinTN]

The law does not see them as persons as defined in the Constitution. That is, as you are well aware, not the same as 'the law doesn't see them as alive human beings ... fetal homicide laws assume the fetus is alive and a human being upon whom homicide is committed.

[Coleus]

And you guys wonder why you can never persuade anyone to your side of the argument.>>>>

Why?

[Coleus]

Babies born in the second trimester, when abortion is considered legally acceptable because the fetus supposedly isn’t viable, now routinely survive and thrive.>>>

Unless their mother, doctors and the law abort them!

Copyright Ó 2003 Nucleus Medical Art, all rights reserved. http://www.nucleusinc.com

[Coleus]

A good example of why we ought not to restrict science.>>>

But that is no reason or excuse to allow FETAL stem cell research.

[lavaroise]

I never knew of a science that vindicated a practice of destruction of evidence and data. Abortion just does that.

[Kerberos]

Nice, really makes me want to get on board with your group.

[Elsie]

No I am not arguing that they are not alive human beings. I am arguing that the law does not see them as alive human beings. See my post #4

You have this exactly right!

---

Our MAN-MADE law, as has been shown already in this thread, DOES protect certain animals from fetal death while allowing others.

"What the LAW giveth, the LAW can take away" as can be seen from history in the LAWS of Germany about the Jews, and the LAWS of the USA regarding slaves.

---

I realize that you do not accept what is written in the Bible as binding as 'law', but why does the illustration of the procedure (#45) cause you to make THIS statement?

"Nice, really makes me want to get on board with your group."

Evidence of a legal practice should certainly shouldn't cause a growing number of women to 'change their minds' about what is inside of her, but it does.

Why is the Abortion Industry so vehemetly opposite to 'informing' people of EXACTLY what will take place in the future?

[Elsie]

More non-relevant information:

 

---

KJV Hosea 4:6
 6.  My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

 

NIV Hosea 4:6
 6.  my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. "Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children.

---

 

Notice it says nothing about 'trusting' in God or 'praising Jesus', just talks of the 'lack of knowledge'.

 

As 'science' gets more knowledge, it seems as though as yet unborn humans are getting a bit more 'rights' from 'learned' people.

 

I wonder why that is?  Looking at merely 'worldly' evidence?

 

Why are our 'children' in this country becoming more endangered AFTER they are born: from beatings, murder by parents, kidnappings, Amber Alerts?  Have they also been 'forgotten' by a non-existant and powerless 'God'?

[Elsie]

Psalms 139:13-16
 13.  For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.
 14.  I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
 15.  My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
 16.  your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

 

Go back more than 30 years, to a time when MOST people believed the above; to a time when politians needed to be 'convinced' to make Abortion LEGAL, to be taken from BACK ALLEYS where women were BUTCHERED by COATHANGERS, when they were routinely being savagely raped and victims of incest - that FORCED them to bear children, not of their 'choosing'.........

 

Now, what were the arguments (pictures, if you will) that achieved this massive change in human thinking??

Why wasn't there a massive increase in JAILTIME for the perpetrators of these rapes and incestuous couplings as well???

[IrishBrigade]

Ah, so Coleus the messenger is the bad guy for posting the depictions on screen; so which group would you like to get on board with regarding this thread's topic, those who approve of the nastiness depicted, or those who hold their noses while legislating it into law, or those who make their livings practising it...what does your tortured reasoning evident throughout this thread tell you?

[jwalsh07]

Nice, really makes me want to get on board with your group.

Presumably that means you're on the good ship Dismember.

Why is it that the truth offends you?

[Kerberos]

"Presumably that means you're on the good ship Dismember. "

Well you know what they say about assumptions.

"Why is it that the truth offends you?"

It doesn't. It is what I am trying to get to here, without much success I might add.

[Snuffington]

A good example of why we ought not to restrict science.

What an unusual and broad conclusion. One could as easily argue that the medical practice of abortion is a good example of why we ought to restrict science. But that's also beside the point, because neither conclusion really follows from the article above.

Are you truly an absolutist who believes science ought not be restricted by some sort of ethic other than its own advancement? Or is your above statement stated more broadly than you intend?

[MHGinTN]

51 posted on 06/09/2003 8:28 AM EDT by Elsie : Go back more than 30 years, to a time when MOST people believed the above; to a time when politians needed to be 'convinced' to make Abortion LEGAL (convinced by lies and dissembling, by deceit and totally incorrect application of stare decesis APPLIED by the nine black robes, not by legislation from legislators who are elected, but to be truthful doesn't fit your agenda, so you mischaracterize and dissemble like a good fanatic usually does!), to be taken from BACK ALLEYS where women were BUTCHERED by COATHANGERS (approximately 200 to 300 women per year died from abortion efforts, both legal and illegal abortions, prior to 1973 in America, as testified by Dr. Bernard Nathanson [founder of Nation Abortion Rights Action League, the butchery defenders and profiteers] when he recently told the truth regarding his lies thirty years ago before the Supreme Court for Roe v Wade; contrast that number of women who died each year with the number of alive unborn human beings being killed during the same period at a rate of between 150,000 to 300,000 per year in abortions and you're hysteria is put in perspective), when they were routinely being savagely raped and victims of incest - that FORCED them to bear children, not of their 'choosing'......... (Aside from the outright lie--women were not being routinely raped and savaged-- contained in the assertion, your bitterness and hatred toward healthy men and healthy sexual relations is showing. The hysteria of your railing against God is growing, as if you've discovered some exception to God's sovereingty thus humans must routinely hire a serial killer to off unwanted children who have magically come into existence through no responsibility of the men and women who's genetic identity is shared with the newly conceived, alive, individual womb-bound human being. The poster you cite was incorrect and the law regarding fetal homicide shows it clearly, but you've chosen to believe and support the error rather than address the truth. There is a pathology in such irrational behavior.)

Now, what were the arguments (pictures, if you will) that achieved this massive change in human thinking?? (Boldfaced lies and deception, that's what accomplished it irrational people foisting lies and false science upon uninformed citizens, irrational people doing everything they could to promote killing of alive human beings as enlightened social policy in order to achieve 'total sexual freedom and equality between the sexes'. You quote lots of scripture, how about finding and reading the one where Paul refers to 'they being so corrupted, He gave them over to their reprobate minds.') Why wasn't there a massive increase in JAILTIME for the perpetrators of these rapes and incestuous couplings as well??? (In your hysteria, is all female-male sex to be characterized as rape or incest? Rape is a criminal act, not a sexual act. You proposed killing the innocent newly conceived individual human beings as the means to deal with someone else's criminal behavior, to address a societal error regarding not stringent enough prosecution of rapist by promoting the killing of the not very often conceived child come into existence becaus eof rape of her mother ... how very hysterical of you.)

[MHGinTN]

As a reminder, Elsie :

Psalms 139:13-16
13. For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.

14. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

15. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

16. your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

[Ignatz]

Using the argument, that a baby is just an appendage is like saying "cut my arm off". But if you cut someone's arm off, there is a loss to that person "as a whole". Cut a baby out and there is no loss to that person "as a whole". Only the baby loses.

There's an even better argument against the "appendage", or "it's part of my body" excuses.
Question: If I found a human arm lying on the road, how could I identify with certainty whose arm it was?
Answer: Using DNA, the unique genetic blueprint of each human, I could match the found arm to it's rightful owner. The DNA of the arm would match the DNA of it's owner. The arm actually is the extension of, a part of, if you will, it's owners body.

Now, a baby does not have identical DNA to it's mother.
A baby has it's own unique genetic blueprint comprised of components of it's mother and father's DNA. A baby is it's own unique human. It's no more a "part" of the mother's body than YOUR arm is part of MY body.

[Lost Highway]

Nice, really makes me want to get on board with your group.

Interesting. People that post pictures of the procedure offend you. People that actually perform the procedure do not offend you. Go figure.

[Coleus]

And what we also know is that the law has always held that an unborn child, until they become a living, breathing sentient being, outside of the mothers womb, has no rights.>>>

That's about to change in a few months.