For hundreds of years, people thought that the soul entered the body at “quickening” which is when the mother first feels movement within the womb. We now know that the fetus begins to move much earlier than the mother can feel that movement. We also know that the march of life, growth and differentiation, begins with conception.

Not too many years ago, people thought of a fetus as being an indeterminant blob of tissue. How could ridding the body of a blob of tissue trump a woman’s right to chose? However, fetal ultrasound now shows us that this is not a blob of tissue, it is a living, feeling human being.

How is it that the right of one human being to carry a pregnancy or not should be placed over the right of another human being to live? The Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to life, liberty, and property. Nowhere does it exclude the unborn from this guarantee.

This is an historical narrative I haven’t heard before. We hear about sufferage and reform of factory workign conditions, but this is suppressed. I wonder why? (First two answers don’t count.)

Plus a good recitiation of more evidence regarding the humanity of the unborn.

as they want to take it further! This is a statement from MIT psychology professor Steven Pinker:

“mothers who kill their newborn infants should not be judged as harshly as people who take human life in its later stages because newborn infants are not persons in the full sense of the word, and therefore do not enjoy a right to life. Who says that life begins at birth?”

Now do not make the assumption that this is a limited view held only by a few. This belief sold a lot of book and is even held, now he claims it is past history and the rash views of a young man(which is BS), by a man our president appointed to the post of Science Czar John Holdren.

Same view Bioethicist Peter Singer who said this has:

“Would you kill a disabled baby?”

“Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion,” he said.

“Anyone who ascribes rights to babies or humans with intellectual disabilities must be willing to attribute rights to beings who can’t understand the concept,” Singer said. “It’s the moral agents, the ones who are acting, who need to understand the concept. Those to whom we attribute rights, do not need to understand these concepts.”

The only moral absolute, he noted, “is that we should do what will have the best consequences for all those affected by our actions.”

originally printed in 1858 for the purpose of providing greater anatomical emphasis in medicine. Prior to that time, a lot of doctors were basically ignorant of the intricacies of the female reproductive system.

Organizations that advocate pro-choice aren’t much inclined to inform young women on the unintended consequences they can find themselves facing later in life as a result of having an abortion.

It prompted me to look for information about Dr. Storer.

His book on the subject, written for women, can be read on-line at http://books.google.com/books?id=PDEZAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Why+Not%3F+A+Book+for+Every+Woman&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false.

And he does use the word ‘infanticide:’

“From time immemorial such have been the deplorable tendencies of unbridled desire of selfishness and extravagance of an absence of true conjugal affection[. T]here has existed in countless human breasts a wanton disregard for foetal life[,] a practical approval of infanticide.”

He also writes that physicians who performed abortions were shunned by their mainstream colleagues and banned from medical societies; what a difference 100 years makes.

Fla Mom

As with “climate change,” the international abortion lobby now finds themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to ask all the scientists to hide the data that goes against their position.

For decades now, they have resorted to the line about “maternal mortality” to get abortion legalized in countries where it is not. Much to their chagrin, the maternal mortality numbers for such countries has gone down, even below those in the US in some.

I don’t know what it will take to get people to see that their mantra about “safe abortion” has always been a crock, especially when you see they don’t want any regulation or oversight of them (unlike legitimate medical procedures). Yet it’s the one they use repeatedly when they want to claim “science” is on their side. There is not and never has been such a thing as a “safe abortion;” it’s an oxymoron.