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 womans right.
With each passing year and subsequent study on pregnancy, science discredits those who contend that the content of a womans 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 isnt 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 tomorrows 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 its my right to have this fetus removed and then killed instead. Surely women wont be that black-hearted in 2033?
Even in 2003, its 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 womans 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 ones 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 babys 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 theyre pregnant, women nowadays dont 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 shes 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 wouldnt 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. Were pregnant, you hear couples say. Coed baby showers are becoming the norm.
How can a woman then turn around and claim, Ultimately, its my body, when society is finally acknowledging its a third persons body in question, for which two other bodies are equally responsible?
Although New Hampshires parental notification bill addresses the relationship of the pregnant woman to her parents, and not the pregnant woman to her pre-born child, its 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.
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
No there's noting interesting, or even hard to understand. You simply did not read all of my post on this thread, so you have no idea as to what my position is.
In the future, before you respond, you might want to fully understand the argument.
Yeah well I wouldn't start holding my breath just yet. So far, this looks more like political grandstanding than anything else.
Remember the stem cell research issue.
Got a citation on that?
http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/sthomicidelaws.htm State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims Click on the link below for a map detailing state homicide laws that recognize unborn victims. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/allpolitics/0104/fetus.laws/frameset.exclude.html Arizona: Illinois: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is intentional homicide, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide. Ill. Comp. Stat. ch. 720, ''5/9-1.2, 5/9-2.1, 5/9-3.2 (1993). Louisiana: The killing of an "unborn child" is first degree feticide, second degree feticide, or third degree feticide. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. '' 14:32.5-14.32.8, read with '' 14:2(1), (7), (11)(West 1997). Minnesota: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is murder (first, second, or third degree) or manslaughter (first or second degree). It is also a felony to cause the death of an "unborn child" during the commission of a felony. Minn. Stat. Ann. '' 609.266, 609.2661-609.2665, 609.268(1) (West 1987). The death of an "unborn child" through operation of a motor vehicle is criminal vehicular operation. Minn. Stat. Ann. ' 609.21 (West 1999). Missouri: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is involuntary manslaughter or first degree murder. Mo. Ann. Stat. '' 1.205, 565.024, 565.020 (Vernon Supp. 1999), State v. Knapp, 843 S.W.2d 345 (Mo. 1992), State v. Holcomb, 956 S.W.2d 286 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997). North Dakota: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is murder, felony murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. N.D. Cent. Code '' 12.1-17.1-01 to 12.1-17.1-04 (1997). Ohio: At any stage of pre-natal development, if an "unborn member of the species homo sapiens, who is or was carried in the womb of another" is killed, it is aggravated murder, murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, aggravated vehicular homicide, and vehicular homicide. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. '' 2903.01 to 2903.07, 2903.09 (Anderson 1996 & Supp. 1998). Pennsylvania: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is first, second, or third-degree murder, or voluntary manslaughter. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. '' 2601 to 2609 (1998). South Dakota: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is fetal homicide, manslaughter, or vehicular homicide. S.D. Codified Laws Ann. ' 22-16-1, 22-16-1.1, 22-16-15(5), 22-16-20, and 22-16-41, read with '' 22-1-2(31), 22-1-2(50A)(Supp. 1997). Utah: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is treated as any other homicide. Utah Code Ann. ' 76-5-201 et seq. (Supp. 1998). Wisconsin: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, second-degree intentional homicide, second-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, homicide by intoxicated use of vehicle or firearm, or homicide by negligent operation of vehicle. Wis. Stat. Ann. '' 939.75, 939.24, 939.25, 940.01, 940.02, 940.05, 940.06, 940.08, 940.09, 940.10 (West 1998). Partial-Coverage Unborn Victim States (13) Note: These laws are gravely deficient because they do not recognize unborn children as victims during certain periods of their pre-natal development. Nevertheless, they are described here for informational purposes. Arkansas: The killing of an "unborn child" of twelve weeks or greater gestation is murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. Enacted April 9, 1999, 1999 AR H.B. 1329. (A separate Arkansas law makes it a battery to cause injury to a woman during a felony or Class A misdemeanor to cause her to undergo a miscarriage or stillbirth, or to cause injury under conditions manifesting extreme indifference to human life and that results in a miscarriage or stillbirth.) California: The killing of an unborn child after the embryonic stage is murder. Cal. Pen. Code Florida: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter. Fla. Stat. Ann. The killing of an unborn child after viability is vehicular homicide. Fla. Stat. Ann. Georgia: The killing of an "unborn child" after quickening is feticide, vehicular feticide, or feticide by vessel. Ga. Code Ann. Massachusetts: The killing of an unborn child after viability is vehicular homicide. Commonwealth v. Cass, 467 N.E.2d 1324 (Mass. 1984). The killing of an unborn child after viability is involuntary manslaughter. Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 536 N.E.2d 571 (Mass. 1989). Michigan: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter. Mich. Stat. Ann. Mississippi: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter. Miss. Code Ann. Nevada: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter. Nev. Rev. Stat. Oklahoma: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, Rhode Island: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter. The statute defines "quick child" to mean a viable child. R.I. Gen. Laws South Carolina: The killing of an unborn child after viability is homicide. State v. Horne, 319 S.E.2d 703 (S.C. 1984); State v. Ard, 505 S.E.2d 328 (S.C. 1998). Tennessee: The killing of an unborn child after viability is first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and reckless homicide. Tenn. Code Ann. Washington: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. States Without Unborn Victims Laws, Which Instead Note: These laws are gravely deficient, because they do not recognize unborn children as victims, nor allow justice to be done on their behalf. These laws are included here for informational purposes. Indiana: An individual who knowingly or intentionally "terminates a human pregnancy" commits feticide. Ind. Code Ann. Iowa: An individual who intentionally "terminates a human pregnancy" without the consent of the pregnant woman commits a felony. This law also sets forth other crimes involving the termination of a human pregnancy, such as during the commission of a forcible felony. Iowa Code Ann. Kansas: Injury to a pregnant woman during the commission of a felony or misdemeanor which causes a miscarriage results in specific levels of offense severity. Kan. Stat. Ann. New Hampshire: It is a felony to cause injury to another person that results in a miscarriage or stillbirth. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. New Mexico: It is a felony to injure a pregnant woman during the commission of a felony and cause her to undergo a miscarriage or stillbirth. N.M. Stat. Ann. North Carolina: It is a felony to injure a pregnant woman during the commission of a felony and cause her to undergo a miscarriage or stillbirth. It is a misdemeanor to cause a miscarriage or stillbirth during a misdemeanor act of domestic violence. N.C. Gen. Stat. Virginia: The premeditated killing of a pregnant woman with the intent to cause the termination of her pregnancy is capital murder. Va. Code Ann. New York: Conflicting Statutes New York: Under New York statutory law, the killing of an "unborn child" after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy is homicide. N.Y. Pen. Law Click on the link below for a map detailing state homicide laws that recognize unborn victims.
Federal Legislative Office
September 2, 1999
Full-Coverage Unborn Victim States (11)
(States With Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Children as Victims Throughout the Period of Pre-natal Development)
(States With Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Children
As Victims, But Only During Part of the Period of Pre-natal Development)
Criminalize Certain Conduct That ATerminates a Human Pregnancy@
Or That Causes a Miscarriage (7)
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/allpolitics/0104/fetus.laws/frameset.exclude.html
Anyway, back to the subject at hand. I don't have much quarrel with your assertion that 13 year old girls are duped into thinking the baby is not a really a baby yet, but what about the 20 somethings, who to the best of my knowledge are the biggest buyers of abortion? Have they been duped? I don't think so. They know full well what they are doing, and have had ample opportunity to avoid the pregnancy, what with the widespread availability, and relatively cheap price of birth control.
And not only that, they are much like the drug users. Everyone loves to hate the pusher, but without the user the pusher goes away. Same with abortion, if no one solicits it, the 'provider' goes away.
To be honest with you, I have more respect for OJ than for women who kill their unborn because at least OJ faced his prey when he slaughtered them. The woman goes to a doctor, hands him a couple of hundred dollars and a couple of hours later, and a limb here and organ there, problem solved. She never sees the baby, he or she is discarded like yesterday's trash.
There are very few actions in life which are lower than abortion, in my view. That tiny being of God, relying on his or her mother for ultimate protection, meets his dismembered end through her desire and at her very hands. It is truly, truly evil.
Oh, and one last thing Mr. Silverback, you and your wife are doing God's work supporting the crisis pregancy center you mentioned. I always said that if I ever made a ton of money, I would open a home for unwed mothers and try to help them through such a troubled time and existence.
All the best to you.
If it really IS 'part of your body', and you have a 'right' to cut it off, or out, then the piercers and cutters and grinders in the new(?) fad of Body Modification are perfectly legal in what they are doing.
However.....
if some really TRIED to have their arm removed, undoubtably the 'surgeon' would recommend another Doctor (of the HEAD variety) to see how crazy you are!
To remove a complete Human Being ought to be even higher.
Though these young women have been in public schools and have some college experience, they are woefully lacking in their understanding of the life that already exists when a woman is pregnant. I hear the same tired lines that PP'hood has been feeding the public for lo these last three decades. Since I've done some public speaking in the schools of our area, these young women trust me to tell them the truth. I've told them they may ask any question of me, and if I do not know the answer, I'll tell them so and seek to find an answer for them that is both truthful and non-obfuscatory. So far, I've had only one question of the myriad of queries that has stumped me, but I dug for the answer and shared it.
Young women, even 'educated' young women, are not in possession of the full truth, and are quite often operating on half-truths and outright lies. The culture of 'death is utilitarian' has accomplished the dumbing down of our young women. But they're not the only ones woefully misinformed. Ask three adult women whom you would say are moderate in their political views what is the actual procedure in a partial birth abortion; you will likely be shocked to find they cannot tell you and may not want you to tell them! Deeper than that is the lack of understanding for the earliest age of human lifetime, the embryonic age.
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.