Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Abortion Holocaust
11-02-2006, 03:53 PM,
#1
The Abortion Holocaust
[Image: abortedbaby05.jpg]



What is the democratic right for the lives of children, yet unborn?

Genocide by Lust, Greed, Selfishness and Promotion
The greatest mass extermination in the history of mankind

This is one of the 7 Million innocent and defense-less children, legally holocausted in Britain since 1967 before they even had a chance to live.

[Image: foetus.jpg]

Why did the women under National Socialism/Fascism not want to abort their cherished creations? Because mothers in Germany and Italy were respected, supported and honoured by the state - they were granted the highest status in society. A status that is not encouraged today in our liberal, disposable, self-serving, contemporary democracies.

THE WOMAN WAS 22 WEEKS PREGNANT when she sought the assistance of Dr. Martin Haskell, the originator of the partial-birth abortion procedure, to rid herself of the already kicking child.

Haskell performed the first stage of the partial-birth abortion. He inserted a seaweed-based substance into the woman's cervix and instructed her to return the following day. In the usual course of events, the seaweed absorbs the amniotic fluid from the womb and expands, thus slowly dilating the cervix. The next day, new seaweed is inserted. On the third day, the abortionist opens the cervix with his fingers, feels around for the baby's legs with tongs and pulls one or both out of the birth canal and delivers the whole body except the head. He rotates the foetus' shoulders so that the baby's face is oriented toward the mother's lower back and then, using scissors, he punctures the bottom of the baby's skull and suctions the brain out through a tube.

But in this case, things did not go according to plan. The woman complained of severe abdominal pain on the first night and, being far from Haskell's clinic, reported to the emergency room of her local hospital. As she was being examined (she did not say she was pregnant), the baby was born - alive.

Paediatricians and neonatologists came running. The baby girl weighed in at one pound. The doctors decided that the child was very unlikely to survive and instructed that nothing be done. Connie Boyles, a nurse, and Shelly Lowe, a medical technician, saw the baby girl gasp for air and were stunned. Shelly Lowe, knowing that the nurses were busy caring for other patients in the emergency room, asked if she could hold the child she had dubbed "Baby Hope" until she died. The request was granted.

Shelly wrapped Baby Hope in a blanket and settled into a rocking chair for what she imagined would be just a few minutes. She sang to her and stroked her cheeks. "I wanted her to feel that she was wanted," Shelly explained later. "She was a perfectly formed new-born, entering the world too soon, through no choice of her own." The baby sucked on her lower lip, opened and closed her hands, and moved as Shelly Lowe held her. Dr John Willke, a pro-life activist and former obstetrician, says he doesn't quarrel with the initial determination made by the emergency room physicians that Baby Hope was too small and premature to survive but when she was alive and still breathing air 30 minutes after birth, her status should have been reassessed. An excellent neonatal care clinic was a mere 30 minute helicopter flight away and she might have been saved. As it was, nothing was done.

After three hours, Baby Hope died in the arms of the compassionate Shelly Lowe. A death certificate was issued, the cause being 'extreme prematurity due to induced abortion'.

Would the ghoulish Dr Haskell have issued her a death certificate or would Baby Hope just been thrown in the dustbin with the rest of the trash? Very few premature infants survive when born before 23 weeks, though there have been survivors at 22 weeks. Still, one has to wonder, if Baby Hope had been wanted by her mother, would doctors have been as ready to give up on her? Would they have still ignored the signs of vitality Baby Hope showed? Was Baby Hope's value as a human being secondary to her value to the mother?

If we judge people's humanity by any standard other than that each is a unique individual with God-given rights, we demean every person's dignity. A child is a child. Would-be adoptive parents wait years and years or go abroad in search of children to love.

Shelly Lowe was asked at a press conference what her position on abortion was. She said she had been pro-choice but was now pro-life. What changed her mind? Three hours.








In World War I - millions of men were at the front who could not produce children from 1914 - 1919.
Then there was the Allied Blockade, which cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of German women and children after that terrible war. Next came the hunger and despair of the Depression and devastating inflation of the 1920s. The German birthrate plummeted as a result of this.

These millions of unborn Germans were to cost the German nation the certain victory in the East 20-25 years later!

A vision came to me while reading those lines in that stirring book: "My God, we in the Western world, especially in Canada and the USA, are permitting abortionists to murder the unborn by the millions - without much protest! On the contrary, with the consent of the majority of the population!"

I felt a shiver moving up my spine, and even now I get upset about this memory, because I believe that God or Nature - call it what you will - will punish us collectively for those mass murders of the unborn by depriving us of the "Last Battalions" in the coming conflagrations.

Those whom we so callously allow to be torn by vacuum suction from the wombs of perfectly healthy mothers, to be so cruelly destroyed and disposed of in garbage containers, will not be there to defend Western Culture and Civilization.

That "Last Battalion" is already missing - for others, from other countries and regions of this planet who did not murder the fruits of their bodies are now taking the places of our unborn, in universities, the job market, in just about every area of human endeavor, because our own offspring, murdered or otherwise prevented from being born, is not there to fill the void and the need for skills, manpower etc.

And this is only the beginning. Karma is being done! Nature knows no vacuum! The places are filled by others.

This is genocide by lust and greed and selfishness!


Ernst Zündel (Z-Gram) http://lebensraum.org



[Image: abortedbaby14.jpg]
Reply
11-02-2006, 06:30 PM,
#2
The Abortion Holocaust
54 BABIES
By George F. Will
Source: Washington Post: December 3, 1998; Page A23

CHINO HILLS, California
Where Route 71 crosses over Payton Drive, at the bottom of the steeply sloping embankment, two boys, who were playing nearby, found the boxes. The boys bicycled home and said they had found boxes of "babies."

Do not be impatient with the imprecision of their language. They have not read the apposite Supreme Court opinions. So when they stumbled on the boxes stuffed with 54 fetuses, which looked a lot like babies, they jumped to conclusions. Besides, young boys are apt to believe their eyes rather than the Supreme Court.

The first count came to a lot less than 54. Forgive the counters' imprecision. Many fetuses had been dismembered -- hands, arms, legs, heads jumbled together -- by the abortionist's vigor. An accurate count required a lot of sorting out.

The fetuses had been dumped here, about 30 miles east of Los Angeles, on March 14, 1997, by a trucker who may not have known what the Los Angeles abortion clinic had hired him to dispose of. He later served 71 days in jail for the improper disposal of medical waste. Society must be strict about its important standards.

What local authorities dealt with as a problem of solid waste disposal struck a few local residents as rather more troubling than that. They started talking to each other, and one thing led to another, and to the formation of Cradles of Love, which had the modest purpose of providing a burial for the 54 babies.

The members of Cradles of Love -- just a few normal walking-around middle-class Americans -- called them babies, and still do. These people are opposed to abortion, in spite of the Supreme Court's assurance in 1973 that abortions end only "potential life." (Twenty-five years later the Supreme Court has not yet explained how a life that is merely "potential" can be ended.)

Some will say the members of Cradles of Love, who are churchgoers, have been unduly influenced by theology. Or perhaps the real culprit is biology. It teaches that after the DNA of the sperm fuse with those of the ovum a new and unique DNA complex is formed that directs the growth of the organism. It soon is called a fetus, which takes in nourishment and converts it to energy through its own distinct, unique organic functioning, and very soon it looks a lot like a baby.

Anyway, theology or biology or maybe their eyes told the members of Cradles of Love that there were some babies in need of burials. So they asked the coroner to give them the fetuses. Then the American Civil Liberties Union was heard from.

It professed itself scandalized by this threat to . . . what? The ACLU frequently works itself into lathers of anxiety about threats to the separation of church and state. It is difficult, however, to identify any person whose civil liberties were going to be menaced if the fetuses were (these are the ACLU's words) "released to the church groups for the express purpose of holding religious services." The ACLU said it opposed "facilitation" of services by a public official.

The ACLU's attack on the constitutionally protected right to the free exercise of religion failed to intimidate, and in October the babies were buried in a plot provided at no charge by a cemetery in nearby Riverside. Each baby was given a name by a participating church group. Each name was engraved on a brass plate that was affixed to each of the 54 small, white, wooden caskets made, at no charge, by a volunteer who took three days off from work to do it. Fifty clergy and four persons active in the right-to-life movement carried the caskets. Each baby's name is inscribed on a large headstone, also provided at no charge. Fifty-four doves, provided at no charge by the cemetery, were released at the services.

The ACLU trembled for the Constitution.

We hear much about the few "extremists" in the right-to-life movement. But the vast majority of the movement's members are like the kindly, peaceable people here, who were minding their own business until some of the results of the abortion culture tumbled down a roadside embankment and into their lives.

Which is not to say that this episode was untainted by ugly extremism. It would be nice if the media, which are nothing if not diligent in documenting and deploring right-to-life extremism, could bring themselves to disapprove the extremism of the ACLU, which here attempted a bullying nastiness unredeemed by any connection to a civic purpose.

--------------------------

The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and educational information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to: infonet-list-request@lists.prolife.org. Infonet is sponsored by Women and Children First (http://www.prolife.org/wcf). For more pro-life info visit the Ultimate Pro-Life Resource List at http://www.prolife.org/ultimate and for questions or additional information E-mail ertelt@prolife.org
Reply
11-02-2006, 10:07 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-02-2006, 10:10 PM by Yodin.)
#3
The Abortion Holocaust
The Hard, Dirty, Stinking, Terrifying Truth About Legalized Abortion.........http://www.christiangallery.com/atrocity/GORYPICS.HTM

This is what God's Child Looks Like Before the Baby Butchers Begin Their Deadly Business......http://www.christiangallery.com/atrocity/smdead.html
Reply
11-13-2006, 09:35 PM,
#4
The Abortion Holocaust
Look, when a baby is in its mother's womb, it is essentially a parasite, leeching off of the mother. If the mother so chooses, the baby therefore can be removed. How would you like some little worm-ape in your stoumach eating half your food and making you look obese?

Once the baby is born, however, it ought to have full legal rights as a citizen (which is why I believe that circumcision should be banned... you have no right to cut off a part of the penis, the most sensitive area of the body, on someone who has been born without the child's consent)
Reply
11-13-2006, 10:09 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-13-2006, 10:14 PM by Yodin.)
#5
The Abortion Holocaust
Quote:Look, when a baby is in its mother's womb, it is essentially a parasite, leeching off of the mother. If the mother so chooses, the baby therefore can be removed. How would you like some little worm-ape in your stoumach eating half your food and making you look obese?

Once the baby is born, however, it ought to have full legal rights as a citizen (which is why I believe that circumcision should be banned... you have no right to cut off a part of the penis, the most sensitive area of the body, on someone who has been born without the child's consent)

[Image: f-insanity.jpg]
Are you Insane?
Welcome to Conspiracy Central.... I found this article for you...Mr freedom

The Free Market Case Against Abortion

Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in America and the world. Abortion is defined as: “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.” There are three camps that most people fall into – pro-abortion, usually called pro-choice, anti-abortion, usually called pro-life, and those who are undecided. Libertarians fall into these three general categories, with the pro-abortion and anti-abortion often engaging in vociferous emotional debate on what the correct libertarian position on abortion should be. Instead of using heated personal opinion, libertarians should view abortion in light of consistent application of libertarian principles, the principles of the free market, and scientific and medical fact.

The free market is the epitome of civilized human interaction, and is the exact opposite of the state, which always relies on force and coercion. It is the shining beacon of voluntary interaction and cooperation, and always seeks the consensual benefit of all participants, and never forces anyone to participate without their consent, unlike the state. The free market thrives on law and order; where there is lawlessness and chaos, free markets cannot operate effectively. Criminals, including the state and its minions, are people who value their rights over others, and will use any means to deny and defraud others of their rights, including using aggressive force. So for abortion to be a valid free market transaction, it must meet all these criteria – voluntary, non-aggressive, with intent to provide consensual benefit to all participants.

As commonly practiced, there are three distinct parties or participants in abortion – medical personnel, the pregnant mother, and the fetus (unborn child). Obviously this is not done voluntarily by the unborn baby, nor does it provide consensual benefit to the unborn child, as it robs the fetus of the one true property the child possesses – human life. Abortion is physical aggression that results in the death of the fetus. Pro-abortionists argue that the fetus is not a human being, or a human being without rights, and that this naked aggression against the unborn child is justified, because if women are not allowed to kill their unborn infants, it violates a woman’s rights. Is this truly what a consistent application of libertarian principles and the free market advocate?

Abortionists often hold the view that human life begins at birth. Yet this view is not supported by science or medical fact, and shows a complete misunderstanding of mammalian reproduction. It would seem obvious that human procreation creates human life. Just as any normal mammalian reproducing species (such as dogs, cats, etc.) produces life of their own species, humans reproduce human life. If the unborn child was not alive, there would be no need to cause the death of the baby. It is completely erroneous and without scientific or medical fact to claim that human life begins at birth. Human life is present both inside and outside the womb. Human birth is just that occurrence where human life in the womb ends, to be replaced by human life outside the womb. So the question is why does the plainly apparent human life in the womb have no rights, and is subject to the termination of the one unique characteristic the unborn possesses, human life, at the whim of others.

Rights and Responsibilities

The free market depends on people being responsible for their actions. Individual rights are predicated and contingent upon individuals exercising individual responsibility. Rights do not entitle one to violate another’s rights, and people who do infringe other people’s rights are acting irresponsibly at least and in many instances criminally. The following examples show this to be true: A person has a right to bear arms, but not to irresponsibly discharge a weapon so that it injures or kills an innocent bystander; a person has a right to drive a vehicle, but not to irresponsibly drive so that someone is injured or killed; a person has a right to drink or take drugs, but not to act irresponsibly while under the influence and injure or kill another person. People have a right to have sex. If they conceive a child, does this right allow them to act irresponsibly, declare this is an unwanted child, and terminate this human life? Some may argue that this is different because they created the human life, but that argument is also false. Just because one owns or creates something, such as a gun, car, or any other object, it does not give one a license to act irresponsibly and harm or kill another person. This is consistent with the principles of libertarianism and the free market, and would seem to fall into the category of a natural law. Abortion fails to meet this law.

Abortion today is similar to the issue of slavery that was wrongly institutionalized and legalized by the Constitution at the founding of the US . Slavery was presented as a rights issue, with the rights of the property owners overriding the rights of slaves to be treated as human beings. Slaves were denied their basic human rights, with slave owners allowed to act irresponsibly toward slaves and even harm or kill them as they saw fit. Slavery was a disgrace that made a mockery of the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal, are endowed with inalienable rights, and was a blow of tyranny against freedom. Today abortion continues this reprehensible tradition of the weak being victimized by the strong, with the rule of the jungle replacing the rule of law.

Men and women need to be responsible for their sexual activity. Men and women should realize that if they have sex, and conceive a child, that they are creating a family, with the long term responsibility to nurture and care for the child until the child is an independent adult, or finding someone who will willingly take on that task for them. If they do not want an unwanted pregnancy and the long term commitment of a family, they must take precautions before hand, when it only involves consensual participation, and not after a human life is created.

Libertarians should realize that there are no group rights. There are no men’s or women’s rights, no black or white rights or any other group rights. Abortion is based on the false collectivist assumption that there are group rights, specifically women’s rights in this case. Collectivist rights are tools of the state, and have been used to justify the state’s murder, theft, genocide, torture, and other atrocities down through the ages. Collectivist rights always emphasize the rights of the group over the individual, and absolve the group of individual responsibility--no wonder they are favorite tools of the state. There are only individuals and individual rights and responsibilities. Though all individuals are unique, there are no unique individual rights, especially ones that allow individuals to violate the rights of others. Again, abortion fails to meet these basic principles of libertarianism and the free market.

Historic Proponents for Legalized Abortion

Abortion has been practiced throughout history, but it is only in recent history (20th Century to today) that is has been widely legalized and viewed as a legitimate choice. That has been one of the rationales for legalizing abortion – people are going to have abortions whether it is legal or not, so it should be legal so that it is safe. This argument makes as much sense as favoring legalizing assassination, murder, theft, and fraud because people are going to commit them whether they are legal or not, and we need to make it safe for assassins, murders, thieves, and swindlers. True liberty lovers recognize that legalized murder, theft, and extortion is how the state operates, and decriminalizing illegitimate and immoral behaviors only leads to loss of individual freedom and rights.

Legalized abortion has it roots in Marxism, socialism, and egalitarianism. Lenin and his communist Bolsheviks were the first ones to widely and openly legalize and advocate abortion as a woman’s right. Communism viewed abortion as a vital part of implementing Marx’s and Engel’s Communist Manifesto and their desire for the “Abolition of the family!” and liberation of women who were oppressed by capitalism, marriage, and the family. Modern day Marxists are proud of their pro-abortion heritage and are still leading proponents of abortion as seen by the short article Marxism and Abortion. This article offers us the following insights on how Marxists view abortion – “A Marxist believes that personality and human value are imparted by the external and economic environment, not by any inherent spiritual value, or even by biological processes . . . . The fetus, according to a Marxist, becomes a person when he is judged as such by ‘someone of higher wisdom.’ The humanity of the fetus depends upon how the mother perceives the ‘social relationship’ that exists between them. If the mother desires to keep the baby, then she ‘fantasizes’ it into becoming a human being. But, if she does not want the pregnancy, ‘it is something else entirely.’ Her opinion of the fetus thereby denies it of personhood . . . . ‘Biological processes,’ says Albury, ‘do not carry automatic moral values as the Right to Life suggests . . . . Human economic, social and political relationships create moral values.’ . . . According to Albury, ‘Material conditions of life change, and so do moral values.’ This means that, to a Marxist, the unborn baby may be a human being for a time, but may then become depersonified and rendered 'pre-human,' all because his or her mother began to think differently about him or her. She adds: ‘Certainly, many women experience mixed feelings; the fantasy baby may even appear for a while. Women can tell it goodbye forever.’” The article concludes with this comment by Dr. John Whitehall: “The inhumanity of communism resides in this arbitrary assessment of human life, which is based on the Marxist valuation of certain social relationships. On this basis, millions have been told 'goodbye'--from the purges of Russia , to the genocide in Cambodia , to the killings in the Philippines , and now to the unborn baby.” I can only agree with Dr. Whitehall’s comment and add that it is amazing that anyone, especially libertarians, would cling to anything associated with Marx’s thoroughly discredited theories. We have already had too many innocent lives needlessly sacrificed for the addle-brained utopian scheme of a classless worker’s paradise; we don’t need to add any more.

Abortion is also the socialist scheme to impose egalitarianism on human sexual relations. The socialists quarrel is that since men don’t have to suffer being pregnant, women shouldn’t have to suffer being pregnant. Since the vacuous socialists can’t get nature to cooperate with any of their foolish plans, such as passing laws forbidding conception from happening during sexual intercourse, they demand abortion as the next best thing. They argue that if a woman can’t terminate a pregnancy, it is proof of gender inequality, and creates a class distinction between men and women. This shows an outstanding ignorance of human sexuality and reproduction, and the unique roles nature has given to males and females in human reproduction. It wrongly treats pregnancy as only a female concern and responsibility, when in reality it is a male and female responsibility, and tries to pit the sexes against one another. Giving women the power to destroy human life by abortion only makes women barbaric equals to the bloodthirsty savagery men have exhibited in destroying human life throughout history. Free market libertarians usually dismiss anything to do with socialism and egalitarianism as being opposed to freedom and the free market; it is strange and sad that some have not done the same for abortion.

Libertarian Rationales for Abortion

Ayn Rand’s acolyte Leonard Peikoff, in an article entitled Abortion Rights Are Pro-Life, gives this view of Rand ’s position on abortion – “‘Rights,’ in Ayn Rand's words, ‘do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born.’” Though Rand states that a child has no rights until it is born as a fact, there is no scientific or medical evidence to back this up. The unborn child is not a mere potential; it exists, and is a human life, which is proven by science and medical fact. By Rand ’s own words, the unborn child’s existence should confer rights. She then contradicts herself by saying the unborn child can have no rights until it is born. Rand ’s opinions are typical of pro-abortion arguments – logical inconsistencies and contradictory statements, statements given as fact with no supporting scientific or medical evidence, a complete lack of understanding of human biology concerning human sexual reproduction and pregnancy, and with ideas that correlate to the Marxist views on abortion.

In the same article, Peikoff gives the following erroneous evaluation of fetal development. “We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman's choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous.” What is ludicrous is to think that a human embryo is just a growth of tissue, like a wart, as part of a woman’s body. Science and medicine prove that by week three, the embryo begins development of the brain, spinal cord, heart, and gastrointestinal tract. By week eight, the embryo development is finished and the unborn child enters the fetal stage, and is far more advanced than a mere frog or fish. Peikoff, like most pro-abortionists, has confused actuality with potentiality, that an embryo is a human being by science and medical fact, and has no idea what he is talking about. Unfortunately, Peikoff is among thousands of others who are ignorant, and believe that the unborn child is just a growth of tissue of the mother’s, instead of a unique living human entity that lives inside the womb, whose life and development is mostly autonomous from the mother’s. This is part of nature’s plan, that an unborn child be self-sufficient in the womb, and does not require direct human intervention. It is only after a child is born that the baby becomes completely dependent on direct human intervention and support.

Murray Rothbard, in For a New Liberty, writes: “Most discussion of the issue bogs down in minutiae about when human life begins, when or if the fetus can be considered to be alive, etc. All this is really irrelevant to the issue of the legality (again, not necessarily the morality) of abortion.” In The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard states: “The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother’s womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother’s freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic ‘invader’ of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as ‘murder’ of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body. Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.” Mr. Rothbard argues that it is immaterial if the unborn is alive, as science and medicine teach, but that this is solely a property rights issue. Though he uses different words, it is basically a restatement of the Marxist position on abortion. Just as in the Marxist position, Rothbard argues that it is how the mother thinks of the unborn child, either as human or subhuman, that determines the unborn child’s rights. Again this is a logical fallacy, and to claim that a fetus is a parasite and invader shows a complete lack of understanding of human reproduction, and is contradicted by scientific and medical fact. While it is true that humans have wrongly viewed their fellow humans as sub-humans, such as Jews, Palestinians, American Indians, and others, this has only led to genocide, a loss of freedom, and denying people their most precious possession – human life. While Mr. Rothbard argues that every person has the absolute right to self-ownership to include their body and life, he contradicts himself by stating the mother’s desires can override the unborn infant’s rights to the unborn’s body and life by wrongly thinking of the child as a parasitic invader. He then concludes that if mothers are not allowed to have their children killed, that this is an infringement on mother’s rights. People who understand human sexual reproduction and pregnancy realize that the womb is the unborn child’s home, that nature prepares and uses the woman’s body for the benefit of the unborn infant, and that the unborn baby can never trespass. This is just a fact of life, confirmed by scientific and medical fact, and no amount of fantasizing, illogical rationalizing, or de facto statements to the contrary can change this.

In Libertarianism and ‘Sex, Drugs, & Rock ’n’ Roll’, Walter Block proclaims: “Libertarians do not favor abortion (pro choice). Nor are they opposed to it either (pro life). Rather, and I concede there is some debate on this issue within libertarian circles, they offer a third option, evictionism. Very briefly, the mother is the owner of her body. The unwanted fetus is a trespasser. What obligations does the owner have, when faced with someone sitting in on one’s property? To remove him, but in the gentlest manner possible. One hundred years ago, with technology of that era, the only way to remove a fetus was to kill it. So, the libertarian position implies pro choice then. One hundred years from now, if technology marches on, it will be possible to evict the fetus from the womb without harming it in the least. Then, the libertarian will be a staunch pro lifer.” This is basically a defense of the erroneous Rothbardian pro-abortion property rights doctrine. Evictionism is just a euphemism for abortion, and is not a third option as claimed. This is similar to claiming there would be no more deaths by simply calling death a “life-terminating experience,” or how the US military claims there are no civilian casualties, only “collateral damage.” It is very debatable whether anyone would care if someone who tried to kill them did it in the gentlest manner possible, or grant them that right. (Does this mean that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were overly compassionate and merely misunderstood?) Mr. Block then asserts that technology can give value to human life, and that until technology can allow the removal of an unborn child without killing the child, libertarians should be pro-abortion and accept the forceful termination of human life. Do libertarian and free market principles really depend on technology and technological advancements, and does technology allow a complete reversal of these principles?

The whole pro-abortion property rights doctrine is actually quit frightening, and if taken to its logical conclusion, would allow all kinds of abhorrent behavior, and shows how rights can be confused with illegitimate acts. If applied consistently, and without exceptions, it would result in only real estate property owners having rights, and only when they were on their own real estate property. This would allow cannibalism, slavery, murder, and any other evil as a right, and would allow each person to be a law unto themselves on their property. While many will claim that this is absurd and false, consider this example. Someone invites you to their home, you are inside their property, and the property owner now, for whatever reason, views you as an unwelcome parasite that is trespassing, and terminates your life or enslaves you. Would you deny the property owner the right to terminate your life in his own property? Would you deny the property owner the right to eat you in his own property? Would you deny the property owner the right to make a slave of you in his own property? Wouldn’t any laws restricting or prohibiting murder, cannibalism or slavery be invasions of the rights of property owners? Such a demented and distorted society would be completely dysfunctional and xenophobic, and would be worse than the state. Obviously such a society is contrary to all the principles of libertarianism and the free market, and true liberty lovers would do well to steer clear of any philosophy that carries its taint.

Why Libertarians Support Abortion

Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard both supported abortion. These two giants of the modern day libertarian movement have many admirers, and many of their followers attribute them with almost godlike attributes, and unquestioningly accept the philosophies these two have formed. While Rand and Rothbard do richly deserve accolades, they were only human and prone to human error, as we all are. Their supporters would do more to honor their memory by acknowledging their mistakes and correcting them, instead of perpetuating their errors.

Many libertarians, especially atheist libertarians, have a misconception of abortion as a religious issue. Atheist libertarian tolerance of religion varies from mild distrust and apprehension to rabid fear and hate, and many will reject anything they associate with religion. People should visit the Libertarians for Life and Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League sites to see how others have divorced religion from being anti-abortion. What libertarians should realize is that abortion is not a religious issue for libertarians, and like any other issue, needs only be evaluated by the principles of libertarianism and the free market.

Many libertarians have a misunderstanding of pro-abortion as a woman’s rights issue, and have confused granting any type of rights with an increase in freedom. Pro-abortion is really a violation of the unborn child’s life and liberty that has been wrongly promoted as a woman’s right to have the unborn baby’s life terminated. Libertarians should realize that a consistent application of libertarian and free market principles will never grant someone the right to violently aggress or kill another human being. Granting people the right to kill, a tool of the state, will only decrease freedom.

Conclusion

Libertarians should evaluate their stand on abortion founded on the unswerving application of libertarian and free market principles based on scientific and medical fact. If libertarians do this, they will find that abortion violates almost all the basic precepts of libertarianism and free markets, and abortion contains the seed of all those concepts that libertarians are trying to overcome. Libertarianism and the free market endorse liberty and the rule of law, where the weak cannot be victimized by the strong. Abortion promotes tyranny and the rule of the jungle, where the weak are victimized by the strong. Libertarianism and the free market support individualism, individual rights, individual responsibility, voluntary consensual acts, and mutual benefit. Abortion maintains collectivism, group rights, individual irresponsibility, involuntary forced acts, and transactions that benefit only certain parties. Libertarianism rejects force, violent aggression, and coercion as a method for humans to interact. Abortion sanctions force, violent aggression, and coercion as a means for humans to solve their problems.

Abortion is founded on philosophical mysticism based on myths and fantasies, not on scientific or medical fact. A pro-abortion stance requires one to see black as white, dark as light, and evil as good. It requires logical inconsistencies, contradictions, and acceptance of de facto statements that are not supported by facts. Instead of reality and facts determining how one thinks, abortion requires one to believe that reality is determined by how one thinks, irregardless of facts. This is not surprising, as abortion has its roots in socialism, and the socialist’s desire to perform human engineering and obtain egalitarian results no matter the human cost. What is puzzling is that so many libertarians, who usually decry anything to do with socialism as being part of the loony left, have been hoodwinked into supporting this socialist agenda.

The biggest fallacy is that abortion is a right. No one can be granted an absolute right to kill another human being. Recognizing a right to kill innocents is a slippery slope to absolute tyranny, not freedom. There are already enough cults of death and destruction that justify the slaying of innocent lives as being in self-defense, as a protection of rights, and for the cause of freedom. Libertarians should avoid embracing the tactics of the state, and concentrate on living by the principles of libertarianism and the free market. Libertarianism and the free market are anti-abortion, pro-life by their very nature.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/weebies/weebies9.html



March 21, 2005
Reply
11-14-2006, 12:28 AM,
#6
The Abortion Holocaust
The fact of the matter is... when you are a fetus, your brain is insanely undeveloped. You cannot see, you can only vaguely smell and hear, etc. And... well... read these lyrics.


Brenda's got a Baby
Brenda's got a Baby

I hear Brenda's got a baby
But, Brenda's barely got a brain
A damn shame
Tha girl can hardly spell her name
(That's not our problem, that's up ta Brenda's family)
Well let me show ya how it affects tha whole community
Now Brenda never really knew her moms and her dad was a
junky
Went in debt to his arms, it's sad
Cause I bet Brenda doesn't even know
Just cause your in tha ghetto doesn't mean ya can't grow
But oh, that's a thought, my own revelation
Do whatever it takes ta resist tha temptation
Brenda got herself a boyfriend
Her boyfriend was her cousin, now lets watch tha joy end
She tried to hide her pregnancy, from her family
Who didn't really care to see, or give a damn if she
Went out and had a church of kids
As long as when tha check came they got first dibs
Now Brendas belly is gettin bigger
But no one seems ta notice any change in her figure
She's 12 years old and she's having a baby
In love with tha molester, whos sexin her crazy
And yet she thinks that he'll be with her forever
And dreams of a world with tha two of them are together,
whatever
He left her and she had tha baby solo, she had it on tha
bathroom floor
And didn't know so, she didn't know, what ta throw away and
what ta keep
She wrapped tha baby up and threw him in tha trash heep
I guess she thought she'd get away
Wouldn't hear tha cries
She didn't realize
How much tha tha little baby had her eyes
Now tha babys in tha trash heep balling
Momma can't help her, but it hurts ta hear her calling
Brenda wants ta run away
Momma say, you makin' me lose pay, tha social workers here
everyday
Now Brenda's gotta make her own way
Can't go to her family, they won't let her stay
No money no babysitter, she couldn't keep a job
She tried ta sell crack, but end up getting robbed
So now what's next, there ain't nothin left ta sell
So she sees sex as a way of leavin hell
It's payin tha rent, so she really can't complain
Prostitute, found slain, and Brenda's her name, she's got a baby

Now, in a situation such as this, would you say that the girl getting an abortion would be an okay choice, and even the OPTIMAL one?
Reply
11-14-2006, 12:48 AM,
#7
The Abortion Holocaust
Abortion is defenetly a way to carry out a Santanic Ritual.
Reply
11-14-2006, 12:59 AM,
#8
The Abortion Holocaust
...satanic ritual? :laugh: This is what bugs me about truthseekers... way too many wingnuts, be they far-right nutballs, or far-left nutballs. Look, if God was opposed to abortion, why does he give you the choice to have one?

Here are two articles by Brian Elroy McKinley

Why Abortion is Biblical
How anti-abortion activists misrepresent the biblical record
By Brian Elroy McKinley

One sided. That's the abortion stance of most Christians -- one sided. We hear the Christian Coalition speak against abortion. We hear Focus on the Family tell Republican candidates it will not support them unless they state their opposition to abortion. We hear Operation Rescue's Christian members praying God will turn back the clock and make abortion illegal again. Over and over we are bombarded with the "Christian" perspective that abortion is outright wrong, no exceptions.
With all these groups chanting the same mantra, there must be some pretty overwhelming biblical evidence of abortion's evil, right?

Wrong. In reality there is merely overwhelming evidence that most people don't take time to read their own Bibles. People will listen to their pastors and to Christian radio broadcasters. They will skim through easy-to-read pamphlets and perhaps look up the one or two verses printed therein, but they don't actually read their Bibles and make up their own minds on issues such as abortion. They merely listen to others who quote a verse to support a view they heard from someone else. By definition, most Christians, rather than reading for themselves, follow the beliefs of a Culture of Christianity -- and many of the Culture's beliefs are based on one or two verses of the Bible, often taken out of context.

This is most definitely the case when it comes to abortion. Ask most anti-abortion Christians to support their view, and they'll give you a couple of verses. One, quite obviously, is the Commandment against murder. But that begs the question of whether or not abortion is murder, which begs the question of whether or not a fetus is the same as a full-term human person. To support their beliefs, these Christians point to one of three bible verses that refer to God working in the womb. The first is found in Psalms:

"For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for Thou art fearfully wonderful (later texts were changed to read "for I am fearfully and wonderfully made"); wonderful are Thy works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Thy book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them."
Psalm 139:13-16
Although this passage does make the point that God was involved in the creation of this particular human being, it does not state that during the creation the fetus is indeed a person. According to Genesis, God was involved in the creation of every living thing, and yet that doesn't make every living thing a full human person. In other words, just because God was involved in its creation, it does not mean terminating it is the same as murder. It's only murder if a full human person is destroyed.
But even if we agreed to interpret these verses the same way that anti-abortion Christians do, we still have a hard time arguing that the Bible supports an anti-abortion point of view. If anything, as we will soon see, abortion is biblical.

Anytime we take one or two verses out of their context and quote them as doctrine, we place ourselves in jeopardy of being contradicted by other verses. Similarly, some verses that make perfect sense while standing alone take on a different feel when seen in the greater context in which they were written. And we can do some rather bizarre things to the Scriptures when we take disparate verses from the same context and use them as stand-alone doctrinal statements. Some prime examples of this come from the same book of the Bible as our last quote. Consider these verses that claim that God has abandoned us:

"Why dost Thou stand afar off, O Lord? Why dost Thou hide Thyself in times of trouble?"
Psalm 10:1
"How long, O Lord? Wilt Thou forget me forever? How long wilt Thou hide Thy face from me?"
Psalm 13:1
"O God, Thou hast rejected us. Thou hast broken us; Thou hast been angry; O, restore us.
Psalm 60:1
Not only can we use out-of-context verses to support that God doesn't care for us anymore, we can even use them to show how we can ask God to do horrible and vile things to people we consider our enemies. In this example, King David even wanted God to cause harm to the innocent children of his enemy:
"Let his days be few; let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children wander about and beg; and let them seek sustenance far from their ruined homes. Let the creditor seize all that he has; and let strangers plunder the product of his labor. Let there be none to extend lovingkindness to him, nor any to be gracious to his fatherless children."
Psalm 109:8-12
Are we indeed to interpret that God, speaking through David in these Psalms, is saying we have been abandoned by God and that when wronged we can ask God to cause our enemies to die and cause our enemies' children to wander hungry and homeless? Indeed, it would seem the case.
But rather than interpret that God is with us as a fetus, but forgets us as adults, and yet will allow us to plead for the death of our enemies, we need to look at the greater context in which all these verses are found: songs.

Called Psalms, these are the songs of King David, a man of great faith who was also greatly tormented. He was a man of passions. He loved God, lusted for another man's wife, and murdered him to get her. He marveled at nature and at his own existence. All his great swings in emotion are recorded in the songs he wrote, and we can read them today in the Book of Psalms. What we cannot do is take one song, or one stanza of a song, and proclaim that it is indeed to be taken literally while taking other stanzas from David's songs and claim they should not be taken literally.

Yet that is exactly what anti-abortion Christians are asking us to do. They use those few verses from the Psalms to support their dogma that abortion is wrong. They proclaim those verses as holy writ and the other verses as poetry that we should not be following. Clearly, this is a perfect example of taking verses out of context. And it leads us to only one conclusion: if we cannot trust that God wants to kill our enemies and abandon us, we must also conclude that we cannot trust that God has defined the fetus as being a person.

For indeed, if we allow that kind of thinking we could also make an argument that God is willing to maul children to death if they make fun of a bald guy who just happens to be in God's favor. You think I'm joking, but I'm not. In the book of Second Kings, our hero, the Prophet Elisha, who was quite bald, so it seems, was taunted by a group of young boys. Elisha's response was bitter and cruel:

"...as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, 'Go up, you baldhead; go up you baldhead!' When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number."
2 Kings 2:22-24
Did God kill those forty-two kids for making fun of a bald prophet? We can certainly make an argument for that if we use the anti-abortionists' kind of thinking.
Likewise we can also use the anti-abortionists' methods to establish that God approves of pornography, as seen in these following verses by Solomon as he pondered the female body:

"How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O prince's daughter! The curves of your hips are like jewels, the work of the hands of an artist. Your navel is like a round goblet which never lacks for mixed wine; your belly is like a heap of wheat fenced about with lilies. Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle."
"Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I said 'I will climb the palm tree, I will take hold of its fruit stalks.' Oh, may your breasts be like clusters of the vine, and the fragrance of your breath like apples, and your mouth like the best wine."

Song of Solomon 7:1-3,7-9
Pretty steamy stuff. Taken by itself, it would appear God is indeed promoting a written form of pornography. But just like Psalm 139:13-16, we cannot take it by itself. Instead we must take it within the context it was written.
The same is true with the other two verses used by anti-abortion Christians to defend their cause. From the book of Jeremiah, these Crusaders are fond of quoting the phrase, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee," from the first chapter. But they never quote the entire passage, which changes the meaning considerably:

"Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child. But the Lord said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the Lord. Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth. See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant."
Jeremiah 1:4-10
This is a special event -- the birth of a prophet. God brought the prophet Jeremiah into the world for a divine purpose, and because of that, God was planning Jeremiah's life "before" he was even conceived. God was preparing him to do miraculous things, such as speak on behalf of God while still a child and setting him up as an overseer of nations and kingdoms. But the anti-abortionists simply overlook this on their way to claiming that the one phrase they quote proves God sees us as individual people while still in the womb. God saw Jeremiah in that way, but to claim it applies to all of us is akin to saying that we were all prepared as children to speak for God, and that God has placed all of us "over the nations and over the kingdoms" of the world. In essence, to claim this verse applies to anyone other than Jeremiah is to claim that we are all God's divine prophets. We are not; therefore, we cannot apply these verses to our own lives.
Another problem in this passage is the phrase, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee." In Psalm 139:13-16 the anti-abortionists claim that because God was active in the creation of King David in his mother's womb that we must conclude the fetus is recognized by God as being a person. But here we see God stating that he knew Jeremiah "before" he was formed in the womb. By anti-abortionist logic, we would have to conclude that we are a human person even before conception. Since this is a ridiculous notion, we must, therefore, conclude that the anti-abortionist is interpreting these verses incorrectly.

The last verse most often quoted by anti-abortion Christians relates the story of Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, while both were pregnant. When they meet, the pre-born John the Baptist leaps in his mother's womb at Mary's salutation. Let's read the original:

"And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:"
Luke 1:39-41
As much as the anti-abortion lobby would like this to mean that all fetuses are sentient persons because one is recorded as knowing Mary's words and then leapt inside the womb, the logic is as flawed as the Isaiah misquote. Again we have a miraculous event. Again we have a divine prophet whom God had ordained since before he was conceived. And this time it's even more miraculous, because the gestating John the Baptist is reacting to the approach of Mary, who at the time was pregnant with Jesus. Unless we believe all of us are chosen before birth to be the divine prophet ordained by God to herald the arrival of Christ on earth, then we cannot claim this passage refers to us. And indeed, it does not. While gestating fetuses are known to move and kick as their nervous systems and muscles are under construction, only divinely-inspired babies understand the spoken words of the mother of Jesus and can leap in recognition.
The point to all this is simple: we cannot take the verses we like and interpret them to support what we want to support. And, more to the point, we cannot simply accept what some Christian leaders proclaim as being God's word on a given subject without carefully reading the full text of the book and taking into consideration the entire context. We cannot, as we have shown, simply interpret those few verses from Psalms, Isaiah, and Luke as a reason to be against abortion. And, as we will see in a moment, there are still other verses -- if interpreted in the sloppy manner demonstrated by anti-abortion Christians -- in the Bible that could easily lead us to argue that indeed God, at times, supports abortion. Let's take a look.

In the full context of Ecclesiastes, King Solomon makes the point that much of life is futile. Over and over he writes that if life is good then we should be thankful. But when life is not good, Solomon makes some interesting statements:

"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, `Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'"
Ecclesiastes 6:3-5
Clearly there is a quality of life issue being put forth in the Scriptures. And in this case, Solomon makes the point that it is sometimes better to end a pregnancy prematurely than to allow it to continue into a miserable life. This is made even more clear in these following verses:
"Then I looked again at all the acts of oppression which were being done under the sun. And behold I saw the tears of the oppressed and that they had no one to comfort them; and on the side of their oppressors was power, but they had no one to comfort them. So I congratulated the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still living. But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun."
Ecclesiastes 4:1-3
Here we have an argument for both euthanasia and abortion. When quality of life is at stake, Solomon seems to make the argument that ending a painful life or ending what will be a painful existence is preferable. Now remember, we're not talking about David's songs here. We're reading the words of the man to whom God gave the world's greatest wisdom.
And Solomon was not alone in this argument. Consider the words of Job, a man of great faith and wealth, when his life fell upon the hardest of times:

"And Job said, 'Let the day perish on which I was to be born, and the night which said, "a boy is conceived." May that day be darkness; let not God above care for it, nor light shine on it.'"
"Why did I not die at birth, come forth from my womb and expire? Why did the knees receive me, and why the breasts, that I should suck? For now I would have lain down and been quiet; I would have slept then, I would have been at rest, with kings and with counselors of the earth, who rebuilt ruins for themselves; or with princes who had gold, who were filling their houses with silver,. Or like the miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, as infants that never saw light. There the wicked cease from raging, and there the weary are at rest. The prisoners are at ease together; they do not hear the voice of the taskmaster. The small and the great are there, and the slave is free from his master."

Job 3:2-4,11-19
And again a few chapters later Job reiterates the greater grace he would have known if his life had been terminated as a fetus:
"Why then hast Thou brought me out of the womb? Would that I had died and no eye had seen me! I should have been as though I had not been, carried from womb to tomb."
Job 10:18-19
Clearly there is a strong argument here that the quality of a life is as important if not more important than the act of being born. Indeed, we could claim that the Bible supports ending a pregnancy in the face of a life without quality. And, if I wanted to be bold, I could claim that this interpretation is in fact a biblical mandate to support the use of abortion as a way to improve our quality of life. And taking these verses to their extreme, I could claim that abortion is not just a good idea, it is a sacrament.
Actually, I will stop short of making that claim. In fact, I will stop short of making the claim that the Bible condemns or supports abortion at all. It does neither. The condemning and supporting comes not from the words of the Bible but from leaders within our Culture of Christianity who use verses out of context -- the same way I just did to support abortion -- to support their views against abortion. The condemning and the supporting comes not from the Scriptures but from average Christians who take the easy way out, accepting one or two verses of the Bible as proof that their leaders are speaking the gospel truth. The condemning and supporting comes not from God but from those who do not take the time to read the Bible, in its own context, and decide for themselves the meanings therein.

For indeed, there is one passage in the Bible that deals specifically with the act of causing a woman to abort a pregnancy. And the penalty for causing the abortion is not what many would lead us to believe:

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Exodus 21:22-25
This is a very illuminating passage. In it we find a woman losing her child by being stuck by men who are fighting. Rather than it being a capital offense, however, it is relegated to a civil matter, with the father-to-be taking the participants to court for a settlement. But, as we read on, if the woman is killed, a "life for a life," then the men who killed her shall be killed. Some have claimed that the life for a life part is talking about the baby. But from reading the context we can see this is not true. It also states a tooth for a tooth and a burn for a burn. Babies don't have teeth when they are born, and it is highly unlikely a baby will be burned during birth. It is pretty clear that this part refers to the mother. Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence -- it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.

It's important to note that some anti-abortion lobbyists want to convince us the baby in this passage survived the miscarriage. They point to the more "politically-correct" translation they find in the New International Version of the Bible. There it translates the term "miscarriage" into "gives birth prematurely" (the actual words in Hebrew translate "she lose her offspring"). While this may give them the warm and fuzzy notion that this verse might actually support their cause if maybe the child survived, it is wishful thinking at best. In our modern era of miracle medicine only 60% of all premature births survive. Three thousand years ago, when this passage was written, they did not have modern technology to keep a preemie alive. In fact, at that time, more than half of all live births died before their first birthday. In a world like that, a premature birth was a death sentence.

Others have looked to the actual Hebrew words, themselves, to try and refute these verses. They note that the word "yalad" is used in verse 22 to describe the untimely birth, and that yalad is also used in other places to describe a live birth. They then go on to say other places in the Bible use the words "nefel" and "shakol" to describe a miscarriage. Therefore, the argument goes, the baby in Exodus 21:22 must have been born alive. It's easy to see how a novice might make this mistake, but a closer look at the words in question reveal the flaw in this argument.

The word yalad is a verb that describes the process of something coming out - the departing of the fetus. Since it is describing the process, and not the result, it could be used to describe either a live birth or a miscarriage. Shakol which shows up in Hosea 9:14, is also a verb, but its meaning is to make a woman barren. Now a barren woman certainly might miscarry, but with this understanding of the word, it's clear why the writer of Exodus would not have used it since this miscarriage was caused by an accident, not by barrenness. And the word nefel is not even a verb. It's a noun. True, as a noun it is the term for a miscarried fetus, but the writer wasn't using a noun. He was using a verb to describe the coming out of the fetus. Thus, if I were describing a man falling to his death, I would use the verb "to fall" which can be used for both those who die and those who survive a fall, but to describe the man himself I would use the word the "fatality." So we can see that while a novice might mistake a verb for a noun and come to the wrong conclusions about the original Hebrew words used in the Exodus passage, a more careful look proves that the words only describe the action of losing the fetus, not the fetus itself. And that being the case, we can't use the Hebrew translations to determine if the fetus was alive or not when it came out - so we are forced to accept that in all certainly, considering the medical knowledge at the time, the preemie died. This makes it even more clear that the "tooth for a tooth" passage refers only to the mother, not to the miscarried fetus.

What has been so clearly demonstrated by the passage in Exodus - the fact that God does not consider a fetus a human person - can also be seen in a variety of other Bible verses. In Leviticus 27:6 a monetary value was placed on children, but not until they reached one month old (any younger had no value). Likewise, in Numbers 3:15 a census was commanded, but the Jews were told only to count those one month old and above - anything less, particularly a fetus, was not counted as a human person. In Ezekiel 37:8-10 we watch as God re-animates dead bones into living soldiers, but the passage makes the interesting note that they were not alive as persons until their first breath. Likewise, in Genesis 2:7, Adam had a human form and a vibrant new body but he only becomes a fully-alive human person after God makes him breathe. And in the same book, in Genesis 38:24, we read about a pregnant woman condemned to death by burning. Though the leaders of Israel knew the woman was carrying a fetus, this was not taken into consideration. If indeed the Jews, and the God who instructed them, believed the fetus to be an equal human person to the mother, then why would they let the fetus die for the mother's crimes? The truth is simple. A fetus is not a human person, and its destruction is not a murder. Period.

It is time to stop the one-sided view of abortion being proclaimed by Christian leaders. These leaders do not -- despite their claims -- have a biblical mandate for their theologies. It is time to stop preaching that the Bible contains an undeniable doctrine against abortion. It is time to stop the anger and hatred being heaped on abortion doctors and upon women who have abortions, especially when it's done in the name of a God who has not written such condemnations in his Bible. It is time to stop, because the act of making a judgment against people in God's name, when God is not behind the judging, is nothing short of claiming that our own beliefs are more important than God's. We must stop, because if we don't, then indeed the very type of theological argument being used against abortion can be turned around and used to proclaim that abortion is biblical.



Why Abortion is Moral
Abortion questions answered
By Elroy

All of the arguments against abortion boil down to six specific questions. The first five deal with the nature of the zygote-embryo-fetus growing inside a mother's womb. The last one looks at the morality of the practice. These questions are:
Is it alive?
Is it human?
Is it a person?
Is it physically independent?
Does it have human rights?
Is abortion murder?
Let's take a look at each of these questions. We'll show how anti-abortionists use seemingly logical answers to back up their cause, but then we'll show how their arguments actually support the fact that abortion is moral.
1. Is it alive?

Yes. Pro Choice supporters who claim it isn't do themselves and their cause a disservice. Of course it's alive. It's a biological mechanism that converts nutrients and oxygen into energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply, and grow. It's alive.

Anti-abortion activists often mistakenly use this fact to support their cause. "Life begins at conception" they claim. And they would be right. The genesis of a new human life begins when the egg with 23 chromosomes joins with a sperm with 23 chromosomes and creates a fertilized cell, called a zygote, with 46 chromosomes. The single-cell zygote contains all the DNA necessary to grow into an independent, conscious human being. It is a potential person.

But being alive does not give the zygote full human rights - including the right not to be aborted during its gestation.

A single-cell ameba also coverts nutrients and oxygen into biological energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply and grow. It also contains a full set of its own DNA. It shares everything in common with a human zygote except that it is not a potential person. Left to grow, it will always be an ameba - never a human person. It is just as alive as the zygote, but we would never defend its human rights based solely on that fact.

And neither can the anti-abortionist, which is why we must answer the following questions as well.

2. Is it human?

Yes. Again, Pro Choice defenders stick their feet in their mouths when they defend abortion by claiming the zygote-embryo-fetus isn't human. It is human. Its DNA is that of a human. Left to grow, it will become a full human person.

And again, anti-abortion activists often mistakenly use this fact to support their cause. They are fond of saying, "an acorn is an oak tree in an early stage of development; likewise, the zygote is a human being in an early stage of development." And they would be right. But having a full set of human DNA does not give the zygote full human rights - including the right not to be aborted during its gestation.

Don't believe me? Here, try this: reach up to your head, grab one strand of hair, and yank it out. Look at the base of the hair. That little blob of tissue at the end is a hair follicle. It also contains a full set of human DNA. Granted it's the same DNA pattern found in every other cell in your body, but in reality the uniqueness of the DNA is not what makes it a different person. Identical twins share the exact same DNA, and yet we don't say that one is less human than the other, nor are two twins the exact same person. It's not the configuration of the DNA that makes a zygote human; it's simply that it has human DNA. Your hair follicle shares everything in common with a human zygote except that it is a little bit bigger and it is not a potential person. (These days even that's not an absolute considering our new-found ability to clone humans from existing DNA, even the DNA from a hair follicle.)

Your hair follicle is just as human as the zygote, but we would never defend its human rights based solely on that fact.

And neither can the anti-abortionist, which is why the following two questions become critically important to the abortion debate.

3. Is it a person?

No. It's merely a potential person.

Webster's Dictionary lists a person as "being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity." Anti-abortionists claim that each new fertilized zygote is already a new person because its DNA is uniquely different than anyone else's. In other words, if you're human, you must be a person.

Of course we've already seen that a simple hair follicle is just as human as a single-cell zygote, and, that unique DNA doesn't make the difference since two twins are not one person. It's quite obvious, then, that something else must occur to make one human being different from another. There must be something else that happens to change a DNA-patterned body into a distinct person. (Or in the case of twins, two identically DNA-patterned bodies into two distinct persons.)

There is, and most people inherently know it, but they have trouble verbalizing it for one very specific reason.

The defining mark between something that is human and someone who is a person is 'consciousness.' It is the self-aware quality of consciousness that makes us uniquely different from others. This self-awareness, this sentient consciousness is also what separates us from every other animal life form on the planet. We think about ourselves. We use language to describe ourselves. We are aware of ourselves as a part of the greater whole.

The problem is that consciousness normally doesn't occur until months, even years, after a baby is born. This creates a moral dilemma for the defender of abortion rights. Indeed, they inherently know what makes a human into a person, but they are also aware such individual personhood doesn't occur until well after birth. To use personhood as an argument for abortion rights, therefore, also leads to the argument that it should be okay to kill a 3-month-old baby since it hasn't obtained consciousness either.

Anti-abortionists use this perceived problem in an attempt to prove their point. In a debate, a Pro Choice defender will rightly state that the difference between a fetus and a full-term human being is that the fetus isn't a person. The anti-abortion activist, being quite sly, will reply by asking his opponent to define what makes someone into a person. Suddenly the Pro Choice defender is at a loss for words to describe what he or she knows innately. We know it because we lived it. We know we have no memory of self-awareness before our first birthday, or even before our second. But we also quickly become aware of the "problem" we create if we say a human doesn't become a person until well after its birth. And we end up saying nothing. The anti-abortionist then takes this inability to verbalize the nature of personhood as proof of their claim that a human is a person at conception.

But they are wrong. Their "logic" is greatly flawed. Just because someone is afraid to speak the truth doesn't make it any less true.

And in reality, the Pro Choice defender's fear is unfounded. They are right, and they can state it without hesitation. A human indeed does not become a full person until consciousness. And consciousness doesn't occur until well after the birth of the child. But that does not automatically lend credence to the anti-abortionist's argument that it should, therefore, be acceptable to kill a three-month-old baby because it is not yet a person.

It is still a potential person. And after birth it is an independent potential person whose existence no longer poses a threat to the physical wellbeing of another. To understand this better, we need to look at the next question.

4. Is it physically independent?

No. It is absolutely dependent on another human being for its continued existence. Without the mother's life-giving nutrients and oxygen it would die. Throughout gestation the zygote-embryo-fetus and the mother's body are symbiotically linked, existing in the same physical space and sharing the same risks. What the mother does affects the fetus. And when things go wrong with the fetus, it affects the mother.

Anti-abortionists claim fetal dependence cannot be used as an issue in the abortion debate. They make the point that even after birth, and for years to come, a child is still dependent on its mother, its father, and those around it. And since no one would claim its okay to kill a child because of its dependency on others, we can't, if we follow their logic, claim it's okay to abort a fetus because of its dependence.

What the anti-abortionist fails to do, however, is differentiate between physical dependence and social dependence. Physical dependence does not refer to meeting the physical needs of the child - such as in the anti-abortionist's argument above. That's social dependence; that's where the child depends on society - on other people - to feed it, clothe it, and love it. Physical dependence occurs when one life form depends solely on the physical body of another life form for its existence.

Physical dependence was cleverly illustrated back in 1971 by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson. She created a scenario in which a woman is kidnapped and wakes up to find she's been surgically attached to a world-famous violinist who, for nine months, needs her body to survive. After those nine months, the violinist can survive just fine on his own, but he must have this particular woman in order to survive until then.

Thompson then asks if the woman is morally obliged to stay connected to the violinist who is living off her body. It might be a very good thing if she did - the world could have the beauty that would come from such a violinist - but is she morally obliged to let another being use her body to survive?

This very situation is already conceded by anti-abortionists. They claim RU-486 should be illegal for a mother to take because it causes her uterus to flush its nutrient-rich lining, thus removing a zygote from its necessary support system and, therefore, ending its short existence as a life form. Thus the anti-abortionist's own rhetoric only proves the point of absolute physical dependence.

This question becomes even more profound when we consider a scenario where it's not an existing person who is living off the woman's body, but simply a potential person, or better yet, a single-cell zygote with human DNA that is no different than the DNA in a simple hair follicle.

To complicate it even further, we need to realize that physical dependence also means a physical threat to the life of the mother. The World Health Organization reports that nearly 670,000 women die from pregnancy-related complications each year (this number does not include abortions). That's 1,800 women per day. We also read that in developed countries, such as the United States and Canada, a woman is 13 times more likely to die bringing a pregnancy to term than by having an abortion.

Therefore, not only is pregnancy the prospect of having a potential person physically dependent on the body of one particular women, it also includes the women putting herself into a life-threatening situation for that potential person.

Unlike social dependence, where the mother can choose to put her child up for adoption or make it a ward of the state or hire someone else to take care of it, during pregnancy the fetus is absolutely physically dependent on the body of one woman. Unlike social dependence, where a woman's physical life is not threatened by the existence of another person, during pregnancy, a woman places herself in the path of bodily harm for the benefit of a DNA life form that is only a potential person - even exposing herself to the threat of death.

This brings us to the next question: do the rights of a potential person supercede the rights of the mother to control her body and protect herself from potential life-threatening danger?

5. Does it have human rights?

Yes and No.

A potential person must always be given full human rights unless its existence interferes with the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness of an already existing conscious human being. Thus, a gestating fetus has no rights before birth and full rights after birth.

If a fetus comes to term and is born, it is because the mother chooses to forgo her own rights and her own bodily security in order to allow that future person to gestate inside her body. If the mother chooses to exercise control over her own body and to protect herself from the potential dangers of childbearing, then she has the full right to terminate the pregnancy.

Anti-abortion activists are fond of saying "The only difference between a fetus and a baby is a trip down the birth canal." This flippant phrase may make for catchy rhetoric, but it doesn't belie the fact that indeed "location" makes all the difference in the world.

It's actually quite simple. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. One will automatically have veto power over the other - and thus they don't have equal rights. In the case of a pregnant woman, giving a "right to life" to the potential person in the womb automatically cancels out the mother's right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

After birth, on the other hand, the potential person no longer occupies the same body as the mother, and thus, giving it full human rights causes no interference with another's right to control her body. Therefore, even though a full-term human baby may still not be a person, after birth it enjoys the full support of the law in protecting its rights. After birth its independence begs that it be protected as if it were equal to a fully-conscience human being. But before birth its lack of personhood and its threat to the women in which it resides makes abortion a completely logical and moral choice.

Which brings us to our last question, which is the real crux of the issue....

6. Is abortion murder?

No. Absolutely not.

It's not murder if it's not an independent person. One might argue, then, that it's not murder to end the life of any child before she reaches consciousness, but we don't know how long after birth personhood arrives for each new child, so it's completely logical to use their independence as the dividing line for when full rights are given to a new human being.

Using independence also solves the problem of dealing with premature babies. Although a preemie is obviously still only a potential person, by virtue of its independence from the mother, we give it the full rights of a conscious person. This saves us from setting some other arbitrary date of when we consider a new human being a full person. Older cultures used to set it at two years of age, or even older. Modern religious cultures want to set it at conception, which is simply wishful thinking on their part. As we've clearly demonstrated, a single-cell zygote is no more a person that a human hair follicle.

But that doesn't stop religious fanatics from dumping their judgements and their anger on top of women who choose to exercise the right to control their bodies. It's the ultimate irony that people who claim to represent a loving God resort to scare tactics and fear to support their mistaken beliefs.

It's even worse when you consider that most women who have an abortion have just made the most difficult decision of their life. No one thinks abortion is a wonderful thing. No one tries to get pregnant just so they can terminate it. Even though it's not murder, it still eliminates a potential person, a potential daughter, a potential son. It's hard enough as it is. Women certainly don't need others telling them it's a murder.

It's not. On the contrary, abortion is an absolutely moral choice for any woman wishing to control her body.
Reply
11-14-2006, 01:13 AM,
#9
The Abortion Holocaust
Quote:The fact of the matter is... when you are a fetus, your brain is insanely undeveloped. You cannot see, you can only vaguely smell and hear, etc. And... well... read these lyrics.


Brenda's got a Baby
Brenda's got a Baby

I hear Brenda's got a baby
But, Brenda's barely got a brain
A damn shame
Tha girl can hardly spell her name
(That's not our problem, that's up ta Brenda's family)
Well let me show ya how it affects tha whole community
Now Brenda never really knew her moms and her dad was a
junky
Went in debt to his arms, it's sad
Cause I bet Brenda doesn't even know
Just cause your in tha ghetto doesn't mean ya can't grow
But oh, that's a thought, my own revelation
Do whatever it takes ta resist tha temptation
Brenda got herself a boyfriend
Her boyfriend was her cousin, now lets watch tha joy end
She tried to hide her pregnancy, from her family
Who didn't really care to see, or give a damn if she
Went out and had a church of kids
As long as when tha check came they got first dibs
Now Brendas belly is gettin bigger
But no one seems ta notice any change in her figure
She's 12 years old and she's having a baby
In love with tha molester, whos sexin her crazy
And yet she thinks that he'll be with her forever
And dreams of a world with tha two of them are together,
whatever
He left her and she had tha baby solo, she had it on tha
bathroom floor
And didn't know so, she didn't know, what ta throw away and
what ta keep
She wrapped tha baby up and threw him in tha trash heep
I guess she thought she'd get away
Wouldn't hear tha cries
She didn't realize
How much tha tha little baby had her eyes
Now tha babys in tha trash heep balling
Momma can't help her, but it hurts ta hear her calling
Brenda wants ta run away
Momma say, you makin' me lose pay, tha social workers here
everyday
Now Brenda's gotta make her own way
Can't go to her family, they won't let her stay
No money no babysitter, she couldn't keep a job
She tried ta sell crack, but end up getting robbed
So now what's next, there ain't nothin left ta sell
So she sees sex as a way of leavin hell
It's payin tha rent, so she really can't complain
Prostitute, found slain, and Brenda's her name, she's got a baby

Now, in a situation such as this, would you say that the girl getting an abortion would be an okay choice, and even the OPTIMAL one?
If Brenda does not have a brain, than she wouldn't even know how to get a abortion. Duh! :rolleyes:
Reply
11-14-2006, 01:34 AM,
#10
The Abortion Holocaust
Abortion is a way for the NWO to reduce the population especially the lower class. Take Brenda's story for instance; she came from poverty with junky parents, and abortion is the way to eliminate people like Brenda, her baby, and her relatives.
Reply
11-14-2006, 01:53 AM,
#11
The Abortion Holocaust
Possibly, but first of all, we're overpopulated as it is (caused by the NWO, by the way), and, honestly, if you were raped, I see no problem with aborting a baby that you did not choose to have.
Reply
11-14-2006, 02:28 AM,
#12
The Abortion Holocaust
Quote:Possibly, but first of all, we're overpopulated as it is (caused by the NWO, by the way), and, honestly, if you were raped, I see no problem with aborting a baby that you did not choose to have.
Is that a threat?
Reply
11-14-2006, 03:56 AM,
#13
The Abortion Holocaust
:confused:A bit on the paranoid side, are we? I'm simply stating that banning abortion, INCLUDING in cases of rape, is flat-out insane
Reply
11-14-2006, 04:23 AM,
#14
The Abortion Holocaust
People that believe in some God is so far out of touch with reality that it's scary, BUT if that's what they want to believe in that's no business of mine, people should be free to believe in whatever they want. Saying that, it's not right to IMPOSE your believes on someone else! If a girl thinks that having an abortion is right for her then that's HER choice according to HER believes, then she shouldn't be FORCED to do something else by someone with a DIFFERENT belief system than hers!

Sir, with respect, we won't be punished collectively accoring to YOUR beliefs, how stupid is that. When you die you will probably see your God and maybe he will punish you if you think you deserve it.

I also agree with what Freedom says. When the baby haven't even developed a brain, why would it hold a grudge against anyone?
Reply
11-14-2006, 05:36 AM,
#15
The Abortion Holocaust
I agree with above, nobody has the right to enforce their morals or beleifs on anybody. Period. While I personally don't agree with it, I can certainly see some instances where it is more humane for both mother and child to have one. I think it is unfair for a child to be born into the world where they are unwanted, or treated like garbage and made to suffer as a result.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Scientology is a criminal organisation rife with beatings, abortion and fraud, claims TriWooOx 0 583 11-18-2009, 11:21 PM
Last Post: TriWooOx

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)