There is a problem with the abortion “Debate.”
Half the people arguing believe it is only a simple question of “When does life begin?”
Well, this is what it really should be. After all, if life has not begun, then the abortion is a simple medical procedure entirely up to the person getting it and her healthcare provider.
If life Has begun, then the abortion is murder. It is a homicide. And, considering the steps one must take to get an abortion (ANY abortion), it’s premeditated.
However, the other half of the “debaters” are arguing no such thing. They don’t care when life begins. Their position is that a mother can murder her children for any reason at any age. Thus, Partial Birth Abortions and the other extreme practices endorsed by that Party (it is an official Democrat Party position that abortions should not be restrained for any reason).
Partial Birth Abortions involve giving birth to the child either naturally or medically (C-Section), and, before the child is fully out of the womb, killing it in any number of ways. Even if you take the position that life does not begin Until birth, you must acknowledge that this procedure Is murder because the child Is born when it takes place.
Furthermore, the Dems have blocked on numerous occasions and challenged in court when they failed to block them, laws that require children who Survive abortions to receive medical care. Taking the position that a child who Survives an abortion and is wholly born can be legally murdered.
This is what we face with the debate. Forget entirely whether it’s good or not. That’s not the debate. Hasn’t been for decades, if it ever was.
The debate is “Can a mother legally murder her children at any age?”
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
Dan McLaughlin
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
And if you believe Obama
bk (Diary) Monday, July 20th at 4:51PM EST (link)it’s okay to kill it just after it comes out of the womb too.
Pro-Choice Left cannot consider when life begins
WilliamPennybanks (Diary) Monday, July 20th at 7:39PM EST (link)so they make up excuses such as “it’s above my pay grade.” Whenever the pro-death lobby tries to establish an arbitrary starting point for human life that would rationalize their abortion at all costs position, it is too easy to refute. 3rd trimester? But 2nd trimester children have survived outside the whom. Viability? But children experience pain, and have measureable heart and brain function far before that. So maybe, like the president, pro-deathers really don’t know when life begins. A murderer benefits from the presumption of innocence until disproven beyond a reasonable doubt before the state sanctions their death. If only the state (or pro-deathers) had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that life had not yet begun before allowing an abortion. So they refuse to discuss or even entertain the topic.
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
That's not a valid question
Menlo (Diary) Monday, July 20th at 8:40PM EST (link)Anyone who is not delusional knows when life begins. That is not some philosophical or moral question or matter of opinion or faith but a simple observable biological definition. It’s not subject to debate anymore than the earth going around the sun. At issue is when is life subject to equal protection. It is that question, not “when life begins,” that Obama was asked and put “above his pay grade.” I don’t understand why this is misquoted. It seems many have given in to the leftist lie that “life” can have a subjective, philosophical, moral, or faith-based definition in this context.
The laws against infanticide have not been challenged because the abortionist murderers know that no prosecutor will enforce them for fear of the attention to any case involving the “A” word. Last year, Lila Rose filmed, undercover, a Planned Parenthood in New Jersey that claimed to routinely kill born-alive infants, despite being in violation of federal and Constitutional law. Does anyone think NJ law enforcement would care?
It is not a question of life but rather one of equal protection. That is where even many “pro-life” people have it wrong.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
If the child is alive, according to the law
Raven (Diary) Monday, July 20th at 9:21PM EST (link)Then the child is protected as according to the law.
That has been decided already. You can reference just about any case concerning someone who was legally incompetent (ie, too young, insane, mentally retarded…).
A living human is a living human. What is so confusing about that?
Even the law hasn’t been twisted that badly.
“If you do not have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
Luke 22:36
They have been twisted that badly.
Menlo (Diary) Monday, July 20th at 9:58PM EST (link)Equal protection under the constitution would suggest that to be the case. However, sadistic pro-aborts have interjected and redefined a “legal person” (an explicit requirement for Constitutional equal protection) in an attempt to require more than a living human. And of course the same people promote euthanasia.
In any event, any biologist or scientist (and any pro-abort who is not lying) will tell you that the unborn are whole, distinct, living human organisms.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
The pro abort crowd is afraid of women having to see there ultrasounds
Richard Mullins (Diary) Monday, July 20th at 10:02PM EST (link)If they see something moving and alive, they are less likely to abort the baby.
Richard Phillip Mullins BlogThe Squash Satire SiteNews on Happy Jet Airlines
Rmullins Pics
Rpmullins Twitter
Joe Biden is like a Decrepit Park owner with a Meth lab that happens to not only be a dealer but a user.
Let’s Bankrupt the Democratic paty. Make spend all the money to defend thier candidates.
You may have a point
Raven (Diary) Monday, July 20th at 11:55PM EST (link)In any case, you are still playing to their tune. You are not having the argument they are pressing.
“Can a woman or can she not legally murder her children for any reason at any age?”
THIS is the “answered” question the DNC is pressing on us.
“If you do not have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
Luke 22:36
How do you define "legal?"
Menlo (Diary) Tuesday, July 21st at 12:31AM EST (link)Women cannot legally murder their children at any age. Neither can anyone else. Those with a medical license can murder women’s children without being prosecuted. However, that doesn’t make it legal any more than Plessey v Ferguson made segregation legal.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Raven, although I'm a bit late . . .
mailloux (Diary) Tuesday, July 21st at 9:48AM EST (link)I’ll put in 2 cents (along with a recommend).
The abortion mentality (you, in my opinion, correctly classify it as the culture of death) is really very perverse. Menlo, I believe, is correct in stating that knowledge of when life begins is conclusive. That is a scientific fact and the abortion defenders know that. They instead rely on a fuzzy definition of “personhood”. “Sure,” they may say, “a unique human life begins at conception, but it’s a nascent human life. Personhood has not yet developed and the mother, who is already a person, trumps the nascent human life who is not yet a person.” These gross rationalization white-washes the egregious act of aborting a child. Fools like philosopher Peter Singer even hypothesize that human personhood isn’t present at birth . . . perhaps not even for a full month after birth.
The real irony in this whole personhood stuff is that it is as much a statement of faith as is my stating that Jesus Christ is God.
Thank you for writing on the topic . . . and please write more. The drum beat on this critical issue should continue until justice is brought about for the most vulnerable of human persons, the preborn.
Take Care, mailloux