PRO-LIFE WARNING TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

A 2004 pro-life thread brought back to life | 11-13-04 | Vicomte13

[MHGinTN]

Now that clueless Frist has endorsed Arlen'Magic Bullet'Specter, it looks like you will win our bet. I feel truly betrayed by this Republican fecklessness. What disdain for conservatives this endorsement of a pro-abortion Republican shows ... the leadership of both parties is corrupt, thoroughly corrupt.

[Howlin]

What did you expect from the other senators?

That being said, I firmly believe -- and know for a fact -- that if the White House wasn't positive that Specter is on board with them, he wouldn't be in that seat.

[MHGinTN]

I shall withhold comment on that point regarding the White House as my current feelings of betrayal are too strong to restrain if I get started!

[Howlin]

Do you honestly believe that Karl Rove and George Bush would endanger their entire 2nd administration by backing off Arlen Specter? Geez.

[nopardons]

Just WHO is it,that YOU are calling a "baby killing Dem"; President Bush,Howlin.someone else?

And FYI........the GOP Senators and Frist have browbeaten Arlen into submission. Should he double-cross them,he WILL be dumped. OTOH, to "allow" him the chairmanship,keeps him on board and under scrutiny,making for a far better situation,than denying it him.Not to mention the fact,that ALL of the GOP can then say to the damned DEMS and the MSM,"well....Arlen is a moderate and Arlen says this guy/gal is okay....so there!"

[notchki]

i don t think it s right to regard abortion as murder. People who choose for abortion are usually just not in a position to take care of their kid, and kids who are not being taken care of are not going to have the life they deserve, nor will they help society to gain balance.On top of this, there is simply too many people, we cannot just continue to have kids and use natures resources for them to have all the things in life we cosider normal.Instead of judging other people on their personal choices, i d rather see that people would realize they have to stop consuming and spoiling resources, maybe it s not even a bad idea to limit the amount of kids a woman can have to just one.It will help us in the future.SO yes, maybe it s wrong to kill a kid, i truly don t want to judge anyone over it, i do want to judge everyone for killing the future of those kids that do make it to planet earth.(usa first of all!!!)

[Dec31,1999]

This thread is really upsetting me. These people truly think they are the ones responsible for W's return and they must be rewarded. I don't know, I thought it had a tiny bit to do with national security and the WOT, but I guess I was wrong.

Ya know, Hildy, we are responsible for W's return. But if he betrays us now, we will betray him back.

At least speaking for myself, if I see that this issue is not pursued with vigor, I will NOT vote GOP in '08. I WILL stay home. I'm drawing a line in the sand NOW, and the GOP can decide what it wants to do about it accordingly.

I haven't come this far to be marginalized into some mish-mash territory of defending a country where live dismemberment of its would be citizens is put on the back burner yet again.

[Hildy]

Well, that just stay home. Do you really, honestly think you can get every piece of your agenda? If that's what you want, why the heck don't you run for office? We, in the real world, understand the way politics works. So go throw your tantrums and stay home.

[onlytryingtohelp]

I am pro-life/anti-abortion, but I hold strong in my belief that the government has no place in dictating this. I do not understand why there is such a militant attempt to have our government oversee and enforce this issue. Yes, it is a moral issue; it is God's issue; it is a faith issue; it is a religious issue. And yes, a majority elected our president again this fall, but there still exists a very large majority on all sides who, despite the depth of their religious or moral values, believe firmly in the separation of church and state.

The beauty of our great country is that we are tolerant. We were founded by various religious groups who fled from countries that persecuted their religious practices. We wanted freedom of religion and we got it. But the crux to owning this freedom is that we must always be tolerant of others and allow all individuals to express their beliefs. If we begin to force our beliefs onto everyone, we stop being the glorious nation we have always been. We lose the status we have always strived to achieve. Our nation is not a fixed thing, it changes with the times. We did elect the president again, but only by a narrow margin. Our laws have changed over the years because our nation is not a fixed thing. We need to be respectful of all people, all religions, all cultural mores and values, not just those that we so dearly believe in. This is a hard cross to bear, but you see, if we honor our roots, we cannot take away the freedom of all in the pursuit of our own beliefs.

Can we not find a way to champion our beliefs without dividing our great nation? Can we not find a way to end, or at least vastly slow down the rate of abortion without declaring civil war?

Remember the words our Mothers taught? Choose your battles wisely. If this battle is chosen, it will spell great strife for our country. Our country must be strong at this time in history. If we divide ourselves, we will fall. Divided we fall. But united we stand.

Does the war against abortion have such a high priority that we will sacrifice our nation in the quest to win it? If so, then no one wins. We all lose, but perhaps the terrorists will win....

[cpforlife.org]

The Fallacy and Sheer Stupidity of Roe Vs Wade -- Case in
point, Scott Peterson

Scott Peterson has been found guilty on two counts of murder in the deaths of his wife, Laci and unborn son, Conner.

Because of California's fetal homicide law, Scott Peterson was convicted of a double Homicide. This is driving Planned Parenthood, NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League and NOW (National Organization of Women) absolutely batty

How could this be possible, they lament, since it is lawful to kill unborn children right up to term?

I certainly can understand their plight, but I must say that I am relishing in it. They were told by the Supreme Court that since no one knows when human life begins, that killing a child in the womb would be perfectly legal right up to term.

So, how could Scott Peterson be charged with a double
homicide, if the unborn child was not a human being?

Well, it seems that the only way a person could kill an unborn child and get off scott (pardon the pun) free is if the killing is done by licensed physician, as long as the woman gives her permission.

In trying to figure this thing out, the only conclusion that I can arrive at, is that the unborn child is not a human being if the mother wants her child dead, BUT if third party kills the child without permission from the mother, then and only then is the child a human being.

Now, let me see if I have this right. An unborn child is a
human being and entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of
happiness and if killed, the perpetrator should have the book thrown at him, as in the Peterson case.

But if the mother has her unborn child killed because the
child would be an inconvenience to her, then that child is no longer a human being.

Wow! This is news, a transfiguration right before our very eyes. Now a child -- Now not a child -- just nothing.

As anyone can plainly see, the Supreme Court in 1973 opened
up a can of worms because their decision was not based on the Constitution and not based on science. It was based on the warped minds of seven justices and from what I have read, a few of their wives.

In the majority opinion it was stated (the vote was 7 to 2) that no one knows when human life begins, thus justifying their conclusion.

Could it be the reason they did not know when human life
begins was because no "human" embryologist was called
in to testify. No reputable human embryologist would dare
to deny that human life begins at conception. Hmm, could
this be the reason, one was not called to testify?

Now that we have DNA which gives the ultimate proof that
human life begins at conception, one has to wonder why
these justices are not now reversing that horrendous decision in 1973, the same way the Dred Scott decision of 1857 was reversed.

This decision declared that black people were not full human beings and therefore could be held as slaves. Sound familiar?

Let me give you another example why the 1973 decision was ridiculous and not given much thought as to all of its ramifications, besides not being based on science or anything that's in the Constitution.

Picture this: A woman has a husband who is a licensed
physician. She told him to kill her unborn child, which is
perfectly legal, as the child is not a human being because
she gave permission.

Her doctor husband also wants to get rid of her because he
has met someone else. So instead of doing the abortion in
his office or hospital, he takes her to the seashore, where he stabs her in the abdomen. The child dies within minutes. As she is bleeding profusely, to take her out of her misery, he shoots her and then dumps her body with the child still in her womb into the ocean so the sharks and other fish could have a feast.

Now, the difference between this hypothetical case and the
Scott Peterson case is that the woman gave permission to
her doctor husband to kill her child, whereas Laci Peterson
did not. So, the doctor according to the law in California and other states which have a similar law, could only be charged with ONE murder. Right?

This is what happens when justices on the Supreme Court
put their ideology before science and common sense. You wind up with a legal mess.

The unborn child in all situations MUST be declared a human
being, and not just a human being when killed by an irate
husband, such as Scott Peterson. Especially since science
with its DNA tells us that human life is created at conception and I also might add the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."


Notice -- it does NOT say that all men are "born equal." It says, "all men are CREATED EQUAL (quite a difference) and since it's a scientific fact the human life is created at conception, then unborn children are protected, so says the Declaration of Independence.

So, what's the problem -- it's right there in black and white?

Maybe the Declaration of Independence should be required
reading for all attorneys and judges.

If only our judiciary would rely on science and not make up
things as they go along, the double homicide under the fetal law would not be open to interpretation.

AN UNBORN CHILD IS A HUMAN BEING REGARDLESS IF
THE CHILD IS WANTED OR NOT, OR WANTED DEAD OR NOT
AND REGARDLESS WHO KILLS THE CHILD, A PHYSICIAN
OR AN IRATE HUSBAND.

Then and only then will the conjecture be taken out of the
equation, but since we are a society where killing comes
easy and we are a self-indulgent country without pity for
children who are brutally killed, with many suffering
excruciating pain, this common sense and scientific
reasoning will never happen unless our country repents
this great sin of the American holocaust.

If not, there will be standing room only in hell and satan
will have a feast day.

Oh, I forgot, the hereafter should not be mentioned. Keep it secular and scientific. OK, forget the last sentence.


Frank Joseph MD

DFjosephMD@aol.com
http://www.hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/abortion.html

[alienken]

Amen! We have to make them do the right thing. Republicans are in charge and the pres. does not have to worry about re-election. NO EXCUSES!

[alienken]

Thanks for showing everyone what a very typical liberal you are. You can't debate intelligently so you attack and name call. Keep it up. It's that attitude that makes your leaders lose again and again. Lost the House,Senate, and Pres.. I can't wait to see how many more seats will go republican in two years.

[William Terrell]

Pro-life warning to the republican party isn't going to work. All the republicans have to be is just a little less liberal on some issues than the democrats, then use the standard threat that not voting republican will elect a democrat.

It's no wonder the republican party is showing contempt for flyover country. They can get away with it because by being just a little less vocal about it, and hey, it's either us or those democrats over there. . .

[Hildy]

I'm not a liberal, I'm a pro-choice Conservative. I hope the choice is life and I hope as a Country we can do whatever we can to change the hearts and minds of young women who find themselves in these situations. I believe this is what our President believes. I don't like anyone who is a one issue fanatic.

[Dec31,1999]

OK. You throw your tantrums, and I'll throw mine. mmmK? :)

Hope you had a good Thanksgiving, BTW. (No sarcasm) It's like a big 'ol family fight! And just in time for the holidays.

But seriously, the killing has got to stop or at least be curtailed in the next 4 years, or pro-lifers are going to be VERY disillusioned in 08.

If we're going to take the incremental approach to conserving traditional values, then we need to see some gradual changes along the way; at least something, like making abortion illegal after 22 weeks, except in cases of physical endangerment of the mother. Even France has some restrictions on the gory practice, I understand.

[Thomas for life]

Great post. Thank you ! I agree entirely with you and Vicomte13. We'll pray from the bottom of our heart.
God bless America ! God bless you !

[UCANSEE2]

Back in Bible times, The emporer had all newborn Jewish males killed, because he feared the son of God.

Today, we allow killing children because they are inconvenient.

Are we better or worse than the man that tried to kill Jesus?

[H.Akston]

Please don't set yourselves up as radical abolitionists. A raped woman should be allowed to have an abortion, early.

The Constitution requires that every person be secure in their person from seizure. A rapist's spawn seizes a woman. She has a right to stop the seizure. This is not just a matter of the unborn's life. It is also a matter of the woman's 4th Amendment liberty to be secure in her person. If the government stops her from disconnecting herself from the person who sucks nourishment from her body and will cause her tremendous pain 9 months later, the government is party to an unreasonable seizure. The unborn's total dependency on the woman's person makes its right to life inferior to the woman's equal right to liberty. It is a conservative principle that dependency creates inferiority - both in welfare recipients, and in umbilical cord recipients.
In the case of rape, the woman must be allowed to detach and stop the seizure of her person.
A radical abolition of abortion can not be tolerated constitutionally - it violates liberty. (Just as radical abolition of slavery, i.e. uncompensated emancipation, violated property.)

[Ed Current]

Such social victimization is, at least, one point that all of us, regardless of our positions on abortion, should recognize as a threat -- against the woman, against the child, against what it means to be a person with rights. http://www.l4l.org/library/aborrape.html

Schwarz, Chapter 10: "Abortion in Cases of Rape, Incest, Health and Life of the Woman?" "The child conceived in rape is one of us, merely smaller and less developed and more dependent, and not in full view, but equally a person. Killing her is wrong, just as killing any child is wrong. We must remember that the child is absolutely innocent of the crime of her father. She is not a part of her mother's body, and she is not a part of her father's character. She inherits character traits from both her parents, but in her individual being as a person, she is absolutely distinct from both of them. Even the character traits that are received from a parent are now her own traits. The child is totally her own person. She is not responsible for the crime that led to her conception, and she is untainted by it.¹ Seeing her in these negative ways is sheer prejudice, not based on reality, but at odds with it." ^{www.ohiolife.org/mqa/10-0.asp}

Russell E. Saltzman, is pastor of Ruskin Heights Lutheran Church, Kansas City, Missouri, and editor of the independent Lutheran publication Forum Letter. This is reprinted with permission from the August 2002 Forum Letter, and is copyright 2002 by the American Lutheran Publicity Bureau. "Everything Personal: Children Born of Rape or Incest," Touchstone Magazine, Jan/Feb 2003. "I belong to an on-line support group (me, in a sup- port group, there's a picture) composed of adult children born of rape or incest. There are more of us in the former category than the latter. Jennifer is our webmistress, organizer, facilitator, coach, head nanny, chief nag (though very nice about it), and the child of a violent rape. Mostly, I lurk. But for some in the group, I am a kind of unofficial chaplain and sometime pastoral advisor. There are children born before Roe v. Wade as well as children born after Roe v. Wade. The handles adopted by some in the group are evocative: "former fetus," "unawares angel," names like that." ^{www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/16.1docs/16-1pg19.html}

Robert Hart, "Her Mother's Glory: The Hardest Abortion Case," Touchstone Magazine, Jan/Feb 2003. " She is a young lady who spreads joy wherever she goes. She has a place in the lives of many, not only her new husband, her parents, and her brothers, but many who know her well, and many who have met her in passing-a unique place that no one else could fill. She is happy by nature at 23, married, an avid reader, a good friend, a serious Christian. This is the person that these well-meaning people were willing to sentence to death. Oh, not now, not when they can see her; but when she was in danger the first time, in the womb and hidden from view." ^{Her Mother's Glory by Robert Hart}

Pamela Pearson Wong, "Abortion's House of Cards," Concerned Women for America, Family Voice, January/February 2001. "I, having lived through rape and also having raised a child 'conceived in rape,' feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest," says Kathleen DeZeeuw in Victims and Victors. "I feel we're being used to further the abortion issue, even though we've not been asked to tell our side of the story." We can begin by educating the public and legislators on what the women themselves-the victims of rape and incest-say about abortion. "Get Victims and Victors to legislators. Ask them to call for congressional hearings," says Dr. Reardon. "Urge them not to provide money for abortions resulting from rape or incest until they hear what the women say." ^{Concerned Women for America - Family Voice}

David C. Reardon, Julie Makimaa and Amy Sobie (Editors), Victims and Victors (San Francisco, CA 94109: Acorn Books, 2000). "In Victims and Victors, 20 women like the ones quoted above share what it is like to face a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. They speak bravely and candidly of the pain of sexual assault, of the sadness and trauma of abortion, and of the joy and healing of giving birth." ^{Victims and Victors:Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies ...}

Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke, Why Can't We Love Them Both, (Snowflake, AZ 85937: Heritage House 76, Inc., 1998) Chapter 29, Rape. States that 170 to 340 assault rape pregnancies occur per year in the United States. ^{Why Can't We Love Them Both? On Line Book by Dr. and Mrs. Willke.}