Unless their mother, doctors and the law abort them!
Copyright Ó 2003 Nucleus Medical Art, all rights reserved. http://www.nucleusinc.com
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.
And your dictionary definition is correct. Now look up the word killer, put the two together, and see what you get.
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
Unless their mother, doctors and the law abort them!
Copyright Ó 2003 Nucleus Medical Art, all rights reserved. http://www.nucleusinc.com
You have this exactly right!
"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.
"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?
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.
Why wasn't there a massive increase in JAILTIME for the perpetrators of these rapes and incestuous couplings as well???
Presumably that means you're on the good ship Dismember.
Why is it that the truth offends you?
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.
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?
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.)
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.
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.
Interesting. People that post pictures of the procedure offend you. People that actually perform the procedure do not offend you. Go figure.
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.