When it comes to life issues, it's really not too much different from the election of Bill Clinton, except that Obama is more radical on abortion than Clinton. The best we can do is make a lot of noise if Obama or Congress tries to do anything which is going to promote anti-life policies.

Here's one thing to be glad about in Obama's win - consider that in 2000, the Democrats ran a crazy socialist for president. Then in 2004, they ran an even crazier, worse socialist for president. Then in 2008, they ran a yet crazier, and even socialist guy for president. If Obama had lost, what were they going to do in 2012? Dig up Joseph Stalin's corpse and run it for president? After all, they wouldn't need a birth certificate (Ha, ha).

The pro-life movement needs to do the right thing.

The right thing is to be pro-life.

We are to offer ourselves as living sacrifices holy and pleasing to God.

We need to examine each of our individual lives to determine where we need to repent and make changes and then draw closer to a Holy God.

We need to surrender our wills and agenda to Him and then let Him work. We need to go to Him is prayer, as holy, santified, and surrendered followers, and ask Him for the strategy.

"If the Lord does not build the house, the house is built in vain"

"Apart from Me you can do nothing".

"With God nothing is impossible"

"I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me".

"Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand."

"Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world."

(1) Massive organized protests against FOCA.

(2) Increased recruitment of pregnancy resource center personnel, including fundraising drives to replace lost federal funding.

(3) Litigation against abortion clinic "access" legislation on First Amendment grounds.

(4) Constant prayers for the health of all Supreme Court justices, to preserve the status quo until Sarah Palin takes office on January 20, 2013.

Dig up Joseph Stalin's corpse and run it for president? After all, they wouldn't need a birth certificate

Maybe we should run Ronald Reagan and challenge the Dems to produce his death certificate.

Dig up Joseph Stalin's corpse and run it for president? After all, they wouldn't need a birth certificate

Maybe we should run Ronald Reagan and challenge the Dems to produce his death certificate.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 15, 2008 9:05 AM
-------------------------------------------------

"You mean like democrats?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpU8sX10_4

yor bro ken

We are seeing abortion performed on under age teens. these teens became pregnant when someone broke the law. We have laws that require reporting of child molestation and rape. Planned parenthood will not report these crimes and needs to be brought into criminal court.

I think we do what the great social movements of abolition of slavery and civil rights did. Stand up, dust ourselves off, and prepare to face adversity once again. Slavery wasn't abolished overnight and the civil rights movement wasn't greeted with open arms. The struggles were long, hard, and bitter but never once did the people fighting to end these injustices ever throw their hands up in despair and walk away. Often the torch had to be passed to another generation and people who dedicated their lives to ending these injustices would never see them end.
I'm often reminded of the Siege of Bastogne in WW2 when American soldiers were surrounded, outgunned,outmanned, enduring the most brutal winter on record, hungry, and exhausted. Their commander was given an offer to surrender by the Germans. His response was "NUTS!". Surrender was obviously out of the question.
This should be our response to any suggestion that we're ready to throw in the towel.
I think this is the exact mentality and determination the PL movement must maintain.

Singly we are weak... but together we are strong. Christians need to awake and unite.

We need to pray!
We need to speak!
We need to act!

One of the first things we need to do is actively fight FOCA. http://www.fightfoca.com/ has a petition with well over 100,000 signatures already and a banner to put on the sidebar of your blog. 80% of Americans support parental notification that FOCA overturns. An even larger percentage is opposed to partial birth abortion which FOCA would re-establish. Get the word out. If 100 million Americans speak on the matter the government will have to listen.

On top of signing the petition, write and call your congressmen and women, repeatedly as soon as they take office or starting now if they are already there. FOCA needs to pass in Congress again before Obama signs it into law. They may have a democratic majority come January but even a majority of their party is opposed to many parts of this radical legislation but most Americans don't know this... and they won't know unless we are vocal about this.

I'm curious why people talk about socialism in connection with abortion. What's the corelation?

That's actually a rhetorical question since there is no corelation in the U.S. between socialism and abortion. If anything, abortion rights in the U.S. stem from a libertarian philosophy. Ayn Rand, one of the most respected thinkers of the 20th century was a wild supporter of free-market capitalism but also supported abortion rights.

On the other hand, Brazil is a very socialist country where abortion is quite illegal. And somewhat inexplicably, Brazil has 2x the yearly number of abotions per capita as the U.S. does.

Why would socialists, in general, be pro-abortion any more than capitalists? Think about it a minute.

Mol, socialists would be more pro-abortion than capitalists because when the government is controling health care access and income levels, the choice to have children becomes a less personal one.

Look at Russia, or any of the former USSR for that matter. Look at China. When people feel hopeless, abortion follows.

It was in the movie, 'The Untuchables' with Kevin Costner and Sean Connery, that the concept of the 'Chicago way' was made famous.

Butthe character I really liked was the bespectacled little bean counter who was going over Capone's books and kept trying to get his fellow G-men to see what he was seeing. 'We can get this guy on income tax evasion.'

The bean counter strategy eventually won the day.

I reject the 'Chicago way'.

I do not like the metaphor of bringing a machine gun to a knife fight. It bespeaks of the random violence of a drive by shootings and mad bombers who murder themselves and as many other innocent people as they can.

I am not a pacifist. I am pro-choice when it comes to war or self-defense.

I am for the more perfect way of love. Love as God defines and demonstrates it, not as we misunderstand it. We can only do what we can do.

There are children alive today, who would not be if I had not acted. There many more who are dead today, because I failed to act. Maybe some of ones who are alive will turn out to be sociopaths. Maybe some of the ones who were killed would have been champions of human rights.

I could not, I can not save them all. Evil could not, can not kill them all. I am only accountable for that which God has given me to do.

No guilt trips, no cop outs allowed.

yor bro ken

oops Oliver at 10:09 was me

Yeah, I am not buying the socialist aspect of pro-abort... Not quite true. Many socialist atmospheres have health care based on the Catholic Church..serving all, caring for all.. Many of these aspects of care are way more Christian than a capitalistic method of providing services...

I think as Pro-Lifers we need to be more generous with our push for medical care and assistance to all... By supporting all this captolistic propoganda in healthcare, we are not supporting a Christian model of care.

Actually-- I just came back from Europe on a Catholic Pilgrimage, we studied St. Vincent De Paul and the sisters of charity... and Honestly..it made me ashamed of the idealism of selling "healthcare"-- and possible some folks getting different types... and some getting none at all..

I am not saying socialism is the way..because I don't think that.. However, the insurance, capitalistic driven world, as it has infiltrated how we take care of ourselves and the people in this country has gotten us into a bind.. and as Christians, we MUST think about that...

I work for a Catholic institution and it is a non-profit.. we care for all..and follow the Catholic mission.. Our CEO's and administration..(which is run by a Sister) are not supporters of this capitalistic healthcare idea...

Food for thought..

Oliver--
food for thought...When people can't get health care because it is run by insurance companies..people get depressed... Have you ventured into the world lately?

I believe the pro-life movement should shift its focus from legislative approaches to socio-economic approaches. Birth control advocacy, abstinence advocacy, adoption services, and other creative ways to combatting the conditions which lead to unwanted pregnancies, and providing good alternatives to abortion when unwanted pregnancies do happen.

Abortion rates in the U.S. have continued to fall, and with socio-economic focus, the rates can continue to fall.

Donna, It was me posting at 10:08, and yes obviously I have written numerous times about how the lack of good maternal health insurance in this countyr is shameful. However, government healthcare is not the answer.

Ask anyone who has been on medicaid during pregnancy. It's hell. You are often denied care except at the most subpar of doctors, you are not allowed to question your medical care, you are sometimes disallowed care if you move or need to make a change your information in any way. You are treated like a child, and every road block is put up to prevent you from getting care.

You can put in a change of address form in during the 2nd month of pregnancy and not have it actually go through until after the baby has been born. During this time, you will be able to get only intermitant care and that will be dispursed only after much complaining and calling and waiting.

There are so many levels of beuracracy, and no one person can perform even basic changes. Should the government completely take over healthcare, this is what everyone has to look forward to. It is not the utopia people pretend it to be.

You, Donna, seem to be the one who has not ventured into the world.

Mol, I agree that we need to keep working to help women to have the resources needed to continue pregnancy.

However, there are many women who would have abortions even though they could easily "afford" to have a child. We need to work to change the way abortion is presented and accepted in the American mind. Instead of something that is "acceptable" we need to make it repugnant.

People are capable of anything if it is socially acceptable. We have seen it time and time again from slavery to infanticide. Abortion must bring up the same moral outrage as other autrocities.

To do this I think we need calmly and rationally point out exactly what abortion is and why it is logically and philosophically unsound.

Anon,

What you're overlooking is that capitalism and free markets encourage competition, better quality and price control. When you have the gov't entering the picture is when you have chaos.
If I'm offering the same service as someone else, my prices better be very competitive and my product and service top notch.

Why would a prominent and wealthy Canadian friend of Hillary's come to the US for breast cancer treatment?

Why did the king of JOrdan come to the US for his prostrate cancer?

Why did Boris Yeltsin import an American heart surgeon and not utilize a Russian one?

I'm afraid gov't interference results in low quality care, unlimited paperwork, and loss of good and dedicated people. At least that's what I've seen with medicare.

Also, I would point out I have never seen someone who needed care put out on the street.
I'm convinced costs could be contained as well if people would take more responsibility for their own health and not view the medical system as a magic bullet.

Well, I put in support to help get pro-life Dems in office (we gained 5 seats this year-woo!!). I think getting our Senators is the most important thing to do, politics wise. As I said many times before, the president is limited, his actions are pretty much based on what the senate does. So, approaching the house and senate politicians is now very important.

Until then the movement needs to focus on changing the hearts and minds of those who don't agree- with the right focus we definitely can win over the ambivalent or "pro-choice with exceptions" crowd, I definitely think. Education is key. Keeping up the sidewalk counseling, trying to pass laws or help institutions that support pregnant women, and keep volunteering for CPC's.. it can only go up from here!

Why would socialists, in general, be pro-abortion any more than capitalists? Think about it a minute.

Posted by: Mol Phillips at November 15, 2008 10:03 AM
------

I've been thinking about this exact question for almost a month...

Let's see:

- eugenic purposes
- socially acceptable population control
- reduced unknown medical expenses
- economic forecast adjustments & planning
- ideologically expedient with regard to social policies & governance.

to name a few...

The evidence is definitely there if you're willing to look.

Capitalists, on the other hand want more customers, so killing them off isn't very wise.

That said, Planned Barrenhood has a socialistic ideology while using capitalistic techniques to advance their cause.

When it comes to human interactions and our productivity, it's usually some blend of ideological perspectives.

PIP,

While I am pleased to hear of PL Democrats their presence in the House and Senate give power to PC Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and ultimately Obama and his agenda.
These PL Democrats, no matter how well meaning, can be pressured and threatened into supporting this agenda with loss of support in the next election.
Hopefully they will consider representing their constituents more important than dancing to Pelosi and Reid's tune.

In short, socialists are more likely to be pro-abortion than capitalists because socialists are collectivists - the individual doesn't matter. If the individual doesn't matter, then surely it is OK to sacrifice the "unwanted" individual for the "good" of society.

Capitalists, on the other hand, in general, view every human life as having the potential for the generation of new wealth and new ideas.

Those pro-life Democrats in the House defeated or replaced pro-life Republicans. This is strategically damaging to the unborn human rights cause.

Pro-life Democrats will vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker and this is very harmful. Having more Democrats in the House makes it harder for Republicans to get back into the majority. Without a Republican majority, you cannot pass pro-life legislation, because anti-life Democratic leadership will block it.

This is a problem I have with organizations like Democrats For Life. They try to defeat pro-life Republicans with pro-life Democrats. This is very harmful and should not be done. Instead they should focus on defeating anti-life Democrats in primaries, but support pro-life Republicans in the general election.

"This is a problem I have with organizations like Democrats For Life. They try to defeat pro-life Republicans with pro-life Democrats"

Can I have a no sh*t sherlock here?

Harry Reid is actually pro-life too...

I too hold out hope they represent the unborn, and the scrutiny is on them individually. But the fact that we try to welcome pro-life liberals to our tribe, then consider them a 'threat' to the cause is TOTALLY LAME.

"nstead they should focus on defeating anti-life Democrats in primaries, but support pro-life Republicans in the general election."

In other words, Democrats for Life should be Republicans for Life.

PIP,

The real irony is that its PL Democrats who may be our only hope!

I would like to draw all of your attention to Mol Phillips' earlier statement that in Brazil, where abortion is highly illegal, the number of abortions per capita is twice that of the U.S.
This is something you should be considering. I repeat: This is something you should be considering.

So what should the pro-life movement proceed?
Mol Phillips' proposed course of action for the (see comment written Nov 15 at 10:56am) is the absolute best one.

@ Oliver, re: Donna10:37--

She's right. I am very stressed lately because Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan won't pay doctors and hospitals in Canada. I have to pay up front and bill BCBSM myself. I mean, thank the Lord that I have health care that will cover me in Canada, but it's very stressful when I know I cannot afford to go to the doctor. Luckily, in January I can register for Alberta healthcare and they're getting rid of their premiums! That's government-sponsored/controlled healthcare, and my anticipation of it is NOT hopelessness. It's my current private coverage that is stressing me. Have you ventured out into the world lately? Maybe speak to someone--a fellow American--who cannot afford healthcare PERIOD. Talk about hopelessness.

The above is me.

Mol Phillips 10:56--You are absolutely right. I think we can ALL agree that we want abortion rates to go down, but your method is by far the best way. Excellent idea.

Mol Phillips' proposed course of action for the (see comment written Nov 15 at 10:56am) is the absolute best one.

What Mol Phillips recommends is this:

Birth control advocacy, abstinence advocacy, adoption services, and other creative ways to combatting the conditions which lead to unwanted pregnancies, and providing good alternatives to abortion when unwanted pregnancies do happen.

Virginia, as someone who is pro-choice, would you support or oppose these efforts? It seems that they would require an extraordinary expenditure of financial and societal resources. Since you apparently believe that protection of fetuses is primarily a religious goal, and that is all these measures would achieve, why waste such valuable resources? Plus, it seems that many of the measures would involve actively persuading women to choose one of the alternatives over abortion, when in fact abortion would be the most logical course of action since nothing of real value is at stake. Why not focus instead on an aggressive expansion in the number of abortion clinics and a widespread campaign to dispel the superstitions regarding the value of the fetus?

Mol Phillips: I believe the pro-life movement should shift its focus from legislative approaches to socio-economic approaches. Birth control advocacy, abstinence advocacy, adoption services, and other creative ways to combatting the conditions which lead to unwanted pregnancies, and providing good alternatives to abortion when unwanted pregnancies do happen.

Abortion rates in the U.S. have continued to fall, and with socio-economic focus, the rates can continue to fall.

Mol, good comments, and I hope they take your advice. IMO we're in for some tough years, economically, and my gut feeling is that people tend to hold off on having kids in times like that.

As Lauren said, When people feel hopeless, abortion follows.

When the Depression of the 1930's hit, one effect was that the birthrate declined - fewer people wanted kids.

However, I think that lately in the US there's been a spurt in births. Perhaps people have less money to go out gallavanting around, so John is looking over at Marsha and saying, "What do you wanna do tonight.....?"

Raving, yes, as someone who is pro choice I would most definitely support the initiatives that Mol suggests. The beauty of it is that this is something that both sides can agree on.

Combined birth control and abstinence education (notice the AND!)reduces the rate of teen and other unwanted pregnancies. Both sides would see this as a plus.

As for the resources that go into these initiatives, they are minor compared to the costs to society of teenagers and others having babies before they are able to support them and have finished their education, and the further costs to society when these children are raised in adverse conditions.

The other thing you should understand Raving is that pro-choice advocates appreciate that abortion is not an option for everyone, because not everyone feels that "nothing of real value is at risk".

Remember Pro choice advocates are not pro-abortion, they are pro-choice. They do NOT have an agenda to increase the number of abortions by increasing the number of clinics, talking people into abortions and removing all other options.

Sorry John, but...
Capitalists, on the other hand, in general, view every human life as having the potential for the generation of new wealth and new ideas.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 15, 2008 1:38 PM

They view every life except the lives of the poor and the lives of the elderly of having potential. Who cares about them, though?

Annnd, I will say this about the healthcare thing.. I started college one semester late because I joined the National Guard. When I left high school and didn't continue to college I lost my parent's health insurance. I was completely uninsured in between graduating high school and leaving for training, then I was uninsured when I got back from training through my second month of school. About four months total I was uninsured. When I got back from AIT.. not two weeks later, I broke my ankle at gymnastics. I was completely uninsured. It cost THOUSANDS of dollars because I slipped up one tiny little bit. Now, I'm still living off my parents a little bit.. it wasn't a breaking deal for me. However, my only income is the National Guard. If it weren't for my parents, I wouldn't have a hope of paying that off for... honestly, probably two years with all the other bills I have. Then I have to think about.. what if it happened to a single mom that's.. I don't know, a waitress? What in the WORLD would that mom do? A lot of waitresses make enough so that they don't receive government aid..so, what happens when a single mom that's a waitress gets injured to the point where she can't do her job? (I know, I'm stretching! It's just what I was thinking about!)

....Sure, maybe with the kind of healthcare Obama is offering the uninsured, you can't HAVE the best doctors. You can't get the best of everything. Just like you can't wear Prada and drive an Aston Martin when you don't have the money, you can't get the best healthcare. It's a fact of life, and it sucks.. but isn't sub-par healthcare better than NONE? It's not like he's forcing you to take it. You can still be insured by whoever (whomever? I'm pre-med, not english. :( eep.) you want... :)

....That's the longest post I've ever written! I'm the only girl in my barracks tonight and it's lonely!

Josephine, I have similar concerns for healthcare in this country. When we moved here from Canada I was so thrilled with the level of care we received in the U.S. thanks to excellent heath insurance through my husband's work. So much superior than in Canada. But now that I've heard stories of people who do not have coverage through employment, can't afford insurance, are denied private insurance due to pre-existing conditions or lose their life savings and homes in order to pay medical fees, I am not so impressed. I am now at the point where I might say universal health care is better - I would sacrifice our level of care knowing that others would be better cared for then they are now. As someone who has oved on both sides of the border I think the ideal may lie somewhere between what Canada and U.S. have. What Obama is suggesting might be it.

Josephine, the government intervention into healthcare is what caused us to be in the mess we are in to begin with. The push to create HMO's took medicine out of the hands of charitable hospitals and into the hands of people who spend billions of dollars a year figuring out how NOT to pay claims. Add to that another layer of government incompetence in the form of Medicaid and Medicare and we have a recipe for disaster.

Medicaid is beyond sub-par. It isn't a matter of not getting "the best" doctors. It's a matter of not being able to find ANY doctor who will respect your wishes. It's a matter of being forced into c-sections because the only doctor in the city who will see you insists upon repeat c-sections. It's a matter of going without healthcare for months because of a technicality that should take minutes to resolve.

Should the entire nation be put into this already horridly flawed system, everyone will be subject to care even worse than what they currently get. It will bring our entire system of medicine down. Instead of pushing people into government run medicine, we should be working to make private insurance more affordable. If the government wants to get involved they should give money directly to the American people so that those people can choose their own providers.

People keep telling me I should "live in the real world". I do. I have seen the system and it is not pretty.

Lauren, if you don't like the health care he's suggesting, you can go out and find your own! That's the whole idea behind it. It's designed to make insurance companies more competitive, because people will have more options to leave. You'd be buying into GOVERNMENT health care. The exact same kind of health care that government workers use.. but he's not making anyone take it if they don't want it. He's not forcing it on anyone. So, like I said.. people have to take what they can get. If someone can't get health care coverage from another insurer, they have an option now. Yes, maybe it's not a GREAT option.. but it's better than the $5,000 tax credit McCain offered. That is NOT enough for quality insurance either.

Josephine,

i'm surprised you would lose your health insurance for joining the national guard after H.S. Were you already accepted and planning for college at that point? That stinks!

Josephine, the problem is when people are given the choice between something that is "free" they'll go to it and flood the system even if they have insurance that currently suits their needs. This was tried in Hawaii and failed. The government could not afford to provide for so many people and so individual coverage was lessened. I think giving people money at the front end is better than spending the same amount of money to put them on a sub-par plan.

Janet- I was accepted already, but my dad's health insurance is VERY VERY good. I'm currently on it again, and I don't pay one cent of any doctor visit or hospital stay. I think that's why they are so strict about having to be a student to stay on with my parents. If something did happen to me, it would cost a lot of money... so they obviously want any chance to not insure me, since my parents aren't paying much to ensure me. I mean, I'm not positive. That's just what I assumed.

And Lauren, I understand what you're saying and it makes sense. Sometimes I forget to think about what, well, I don't want to offend anyone and say "stupid" so, I guess I'll say non-thinking persons. Not necessarily stupid, but they just don't think about the BIG picture... I don't think about what those people will do will the health care he's offering.

I guess... if everyone worked for the good of the country, his plan is perfect. If people that didn't need his health care didn't take it... then it would be a great plan. Does that make sense to you? (I'm not saying that in a snobby way, I just don't know if I wrote that in a way that makes sense. :))

Regarding Harry Reid being pro life.

This is also the case with Joe Biden, John Kerry and several other senators.... they say they personally oppose abortion, but dont want to impose their religious beliefs on others.

This is a total cop out, because it has been proven that life begins at conception. It's not just a "religious belief" but scientific fact.

So these guys who say they personally oppose dont seem to have a problem going along with pro death policies.

The only thing you can say for them is they all agreed with BAIPA, and in the case of Biden at least ( not sure about the others) voted to ban partial birth abortion.

Remember Pro choice advocates are not pro-abortion, they are pro-choice. They do NOT have an agenda to increase the number of abortions by increasing the number of clinics, talking people into abortions and removing all other options.

Posted by:Virginia K at November 15,2008 10:26 PM

Planned Parenthood builds abortion fortresses of brick with few windows and bullet-proof glass for the sole purpose of killing babies.

"So these guys who say they personally oppose dont seem to have a problem going along with pro death policies."

http://www.issues2000.org/SENATE/Harry_Reid.htm

At worst he has a mixed voting record but it doesn't look too shabby. I'd say he's pretty strong on that incrementalist legislation that is so very important. Don't see anythign wrong with that.

Virginia K @ 10:26 PM

For you, apparently abortion is really about choice - some people consider something of value is being destroyed, while others think nothing of value is destroyed.

People should be able to choose what's valuable to them?

Scientifically we know pre-borns are human beings - so are you saying some human lives are less valuable than someone's choice?

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying.

Once again people... it is a religious belief and not a scientific fact that "life" begins at conception. Sure, you can't get to a baby without the egg meeting the sperm and you can call that the "beginning of life" but that does not mean everyone agrees nor is it a scientific fact that the mass of cells at that point is a human being.

Virginia,

So, your humanity and mine is a matter of religious belief? Do we stop being human because someone says we aren't?
Our humanity is based on biological and genetic factors that are either there from the moment of conception or they're not.

Mary of course my humanity is not a matter of religious beliefs. It's just that I and other pro-choice advocates do not feel that the clump of cells is a human being yet. Just as many pro-lifers recognize that their belief that it is a huma is a religious belief that should not be imposed on others.

Give it up. The Prolife movement needs a better stratgey moving forward. That's what this discussion is about. Mol's suggestion is the best course of action for you to take. You'll get nowhere with the other.

Virgina, tres bonne.

merci beaucoup therence!

I think we might be premature in criticizing Virginia. From what she's said, I'm not sure we know enough about her position to evaluate it. The only conclusions I have drawn from her comments are as follows:

(1) The belief that an embryo/fetus is a human being -- at any time between conception and birth -- is a religious belief.

(2) Although #1 is a religious belief, it is not necessarily a false belief. A religious belief may be true or false, just as a secular or scientific belief may be true or false. For example, one may hold a religious or scientific belief regarding the existence of life elsewhere in the universe (angel, spirits, aliens etc.) and either kind may be true or false.

(3) The belief that an embryo/fetus is NOT human being -- at any time between conception and birth -- is also merely a religious belief. Once again, it may be true or false.

(4) Although some people believe that the questions regarding the humanity of the embryo/fetus are secular, scientific beliefs, they are wrong about the nature of the question. However, even if the question regarhing the humanity of the fetus is a secular, scientifc one, the answer that the fetus is human may be false, and is also a religious answer.

(5) The law should not place any restrictions on the killing an embryo/fetus between the time of conception and just before birth, because to do so would impose someone's religious belief on someone else.

(6) The law should not place any restrictions on the killing a prematurely-born fetus, because of the risk of the imposition of religious beliefs upon the mother.

This is as much as I think we can definitely say about Virginia's position. Whether she believes that there should be restrictions on killing sleeping newborns/comatose teenagers, or whether such restrictions would impose religious beliefs, is an open question because she has not spoken to the status of post-birth beings which share the human genetic composition.

It's just that I and other pro-choice advocates do not feel that the clump of cells is a human being yet.
Posted by:Virginia K at November 16, 2008 8:14 AM

Spoken like an old school pro-abort Virginia. That clump of cells argument doesn't work any more. Have you ever heard of the ultrasound? Those clumps of cells are fingers and toes just the clumps of cells at the end of your arms and your legs. Hmmm... Next you'll say that only "wanted" clumps of cells or clumps of cells that aren't burndening the mother are human beings right? lol When life actually begins is above a pro-aborts pay grade even though they see the fingers and toe etc... but they are absolutely sure they can kill same life that they admit that knowing whether said baby has life is above their pay-grade.

Virginia, Virginia.... We are all clumps of cells. You say that knowing when said clump of cells has "life" and yet you are willing to kill said life. Shouldn't you be erring on the side of "life" since by your own admission you do not know when "life" begins?

Yes it is true that people of faith know that life begins at conception and it it is written in scripture that life begins at conception. But how can people like you and your messiah Barack Hussein Obama, who admit that they don't knowing the answer to when life begins but sure they have a right to kill same life. hmmmmm
You are the only people I know who think they have a "right" to do something that they admit not even knowing what they are doing.

Virginia,

What you are now was determined the moment you were conceived. Your gender, race, hair color, etc. You are now what you were at that moment.
This isn't a religious belief.
A clump of cells? What do you think you are?

(1) Massive organized protests against FOCA.

(2) Increased recruitment of pregnancy resource center personnel, including fundraising drives to replace lost federal funding.

(3) Litigation against abortion clinic "access" legislation on First Amendment grounds.

(4) Constant prayers for the health of all Supreme Court justices, to preserve the status quo until Sarah Palin takes office on January 20, 2013.

CAN I GET AN AMEN?????

Jan, those ideas are sooooo 9:02 AM.

Raving, scienctific FACTS not scientific beliefs. Please get it right if you are going to debate it.

Anon 12:02PM,

I understand the difference between scientific facts and scientific beliefs. However, I wasn't discussing my own beliefs, but merely setting forth my understanding of Virginia's beliefs. Debate her if you have some disagreement (although you cryptic comment gives me very little idea of what you do believe, other than it's probably okay to plunge a pair of scissors through a newborn's skull).

Virginia @ 8:14 AM,

Mary of course my humanity is not a matter of religious beliefs. It's just that I and other pro-choice advocates do not feel that the clump of cells is a human being yet. Just as many pro-lifers recognize that their belief that it is a huma is a religious belief that should not be imposed on others.

Give it up. The Prolife movement needs a better stratgey moving forward. That's what this discussion is about. Mol's suggestion is the best course of action for you to take. You'll get nowhere with the other.

Can you please re-iterate which of Mol's suggestions you would advocate?

. . . . . . . . . . . .
JAN @ 11:45 AM,

AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!

Janet, I and others have referred to Mol's 10:56 a.m. post as the best strategy for the prolife movement.

I love how people still pretend that there is some cosmic question about when life begins.

It is accepted scientific fact that a new,unique human life begins at the moment of amphimixis, when the male and female pronuclei fuse to complete fertilization.

There is no great debate. Dr. Nathanson admitted that they fabricated the debate, even though they knew that no such debate existed in order to garner support for the pro-abortion cause.

Lauren there actually is still great debate about when human life begins, at what stage is the life form considered a human being, when does personhood begin.... however you want to phrase the issue.

Virginia,

Am I correct in my previously-stated assumption that your position is that human life begins at a fully-gestated birth, and for the law to protect it from being killed before that point would constitute the imposition of a religious belief?

No, there is no debate about when human life begins. It begins at amphimixis. When human life becomes a "human being" or "human person" has become debatable, but it is not a scientific debate. Science says that a unique human life is formed at amphimixis.

Basically, what we have here is the age old tradition of classifying a certain group as "sub-person humans". This has happened again and again throughout human society, and happens only when one group wants to take away the rights of another.

Think American and European slaves of African decent, Australian aboriginals,Rwandan Tutsis, Jews, the physically and/or mentally disabled, the native americans...I could go on, but I think you understand my point.

Are we to believe that it is your position that anyone working to secure rights for these peoples were actually working only within a religious paradigm and thus, should have been dismissed? Are we also to assume that you believe that both sides of the issue regarding personhood are morally equivalent?

Lauren, that is exactly what I was saying - that the point at which the life form becomes a human being or person is debatable. And inasmuch, both sides of the issue can been morally equivalent.

And consequently your comparison with slaves, jews, etc is invalid.

the point at which the life form becomes a human being or person is debatable

Once again, Virginia -- to your mind, at what point is it no longer a debatable, "religious" issue -- specifically, at what point do you believe that the law may step in to prohibit the killing?

No, just because something is debatable does not mean that both sides are morally equivalent.

Slavery was debated, but one side was obviously morally wrong.

Also, you can't simply say "your comparison is invalid" without offering any evidence as to why it is invalid. I can say "the moon is green" but that doesn't make it so. You have to give supporting evidence as to why the comparison is invalid, and simply pointing to your own circular reasoning doesn't cut it.

At what point is it no longer debatable? That would be at birth, when the baby emerges from the vagina.

Okay Lauren let me explain what I mean more clearly:

It is not a fact when life begins at conception. It is debatable. Therefore, it is not a fact that abortion is murder. If your side does not believe life begins at conception your support of abortion does not lower your moral standing.

And similarly, if you do not believe life begins at conception it is not valid to equate abortion with slavery and genocide.

Comprende?

That would be at birth, when the baby emerges from the vagina

So your position is that an objection to the abortion of a fetus eight months into the pregnancy can only be a religious objection, and that the state may not prohibit such an abortion without imposing a religious belief upon the woman?

Well, I don't know if it's just a religious objection. Is it? Is there a scientific/medical debate that personhood may begin before birth?

You asked me at what point do I think it is no longer debatable that the life form is a human.

What is your great scientific data that proves the baby is a person after birth? I mean, why is it no longer scientifically debateable once the baby is born?

bro ken,
Maybe you could help Virginia out here. She thinks that the baby is something other than human until the baby is born.

No..... that's NOT what I said Truthseeker. I said it is no longer debateable once the baby is born. That's what you asked me. Up until then, there are different thoughts on when personhood begins. However, at birth there can no longer be any debate because you have two separate bodies, two separte humans. I beleive the Jewush faith believes you become a person during birth. I don't think anyone believes it's later than taht. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Virginia, scientifically speaking, if unborn babies are not human then what species of animal are they?

Holy crap... Truthseeker, are you kidding me or are you that stupid?

I'm not that stupid Virginia, but one of us is. Here it is in your own words and your own post only 30 minutes ago:
*******
Well, I don't know if it's just a religious objection. Is it? Is there a scientific/medical debate that personhood may begin before birth?

You asked me at what point do I think it is no longer debatable that the life form is a human.
Posted by:Virginia K at November 16, 2008 8:04 PM
*****
Does it look as stupid to you as it did to me. I felt silly just repeating what you had posted that up until birth it is debateable wether or not the baby is a human life form. lol

Virginia says "Okay Lauren let me explain what I mean more clearly:

It is not a fact when life begins at conception. It is debatable. Therefore, it is not a fact that abortion is murder. If your side does not believe life begins at conception your support of abortion does not lower your moral standing.

And similarly, if you do not believe life begins at conception it is not valid to equate abortion with slavery and genocide."

Ok, first of all you can say "its is not a fact that life begins at conception" but that is not a true statement. There is no debate. From fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology 7th edition by Frederic H. Martini:

"After oocyte activation and completion of meiosis, the nuclear material remainin within the ovum reorganizes as teh female pronucleus. While these changes are under way the nuclues of the spermatozoon swells, and as it forms the male pronucleus (the rest of the sperm brease down). The male pronucleus then migrates toward the center of the cell, and the spindle fibers form. The two pronuclei then fuse in the process called amphimixis. The cell is no a zygote that contains the normal complement of 46 chromosomes, and fertilization is complete. This is the "moment of conception."

And later, "continuity exists at all levels and at all times. Nothing "leaps" into existence without apparent precursor. differnetiation and increasing structural complexity occur hand and hand."

Not much ambiguity there.

And according to the fonder of NARAL, Dr Bernard Nathanson "A favourite pro-
abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that
the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific
one. Foetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception."

So, we are not talking about when a unique human life begins. We're talking about defining that particular class of fetal human life as "sub-person".

This definition is what is analogous to previous classifications of blacks as "sub-person humans" or Jews as "sub-person humans" or any other group that has been marginalized.

Again, there is absolutely no debate that life begins at conception. It does. The debate only rests in the rights given to that class of human beings.

My point is that any time in history when we have defined humans as less than persons it has been to marginalize them. You have offered nothing to contridict this statement.

Ok, I'm just going repost this from my former post to make sure it is seen. I realize that my previous post was very long, and I think this is too important to get lost in my ramblings.

"According to the fonder of NARAL, Dr Bernard Nathanson "A favourite pro-
abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that
the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific
one. Foetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception."

Sorry Lauren, but it is WIDELY debated. There is not concensus. That is why abortion is legal. That is why good people can say it's okay. I respect that you do believe abortion is the same as murdering a human being. But not everyone does. You will not change their mind. They will not change yours. You will not abolish abortion by making it illegal again. What to do then, if anything? Work to reduce the demand for abortions.

Ahhhhhhh...and so we come full circle. see the original post. See Mol's comment from 10:56 a.m. Nov 15 (almost 18 hours ago!).

Good night all.

Well, I don't know if it's just a religious objection. Is it?

For me it's not a "just a religious objection" even at conception, as that's when one acquires one's unique set of human genetic traits. There's really no scientific dispute that the fetus is a form of a human life, and a human "being."

Is there a scientific/medical debate that personhood may begin before birth?

Depends on what you mean by the word "person." That particular term ordinarily presents a philosophical or legal question rather than a scientific one. Some define a person as a human being with a certain set of traits, usually including consciousness or self-consciousness. So one might not be a person when one is sleeping, in a coma, a semi-sentient newborn, or even a six year old, although all of those beings would be human.

From a legal standpoint, the term "person" often merely signifies the point at which one has an absolute right against getting killed or owned or otherwise poorly treated. Blacks were not persons (or full person) under the U.S. Constitution until the abolition of slavery. Under Roe v Wade, the court concluded that (under the Constitution) a "person" only included a born human being. However, the court still permitted the states to give the fetus a protectable right to live after "viability" (approximately six months) provided it was posing a (loosely-defined) threat to the life or health of the woman. Even so, the court does not require a state to give a fetus any rights until birth.

This still leaves open my question to you, Virginia: at what point, if any, do you think the LAW should step in to protect a fetus? In other words, if you were a state legislator, would you vote to permit a woman to kill the fetus for any reason up to birth, or draw the line earlier (and if so, when)?

It is not a fact when life begins at conception. It is debatable.
Virginia K at November 16, 2008 7:04 PM
----

Really Virginia?

You seem confused.

It's not a problem with any embryologist, including Dr. Landrum Shettles, who was the first scientist to achieve an in-vitro conception. In Rites of Life he said conception didn't just confer life, but it "defines life".

Alan Guttmacher (former Planned Parenthood president) wrote a book called Life in the Making which showed that he clearly understood that life began at conception, and "This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn't part of common knowledge."

I could provide numerous embryology texts to back this fact.

Now if you're going to argue that being a human worthy of life requires a majority consensus definition of what it means to be human, then your own human identity would be subject to that majority. What's stopping them from declaring you a non-person?

Nothing.

Your logic begs the question - you're assuming what you are trying to prove - that you are an intrinsically valuable human being, but other human beings are not, though they are made of flesh and blood just like you.

You pick sentience as a means to deny human rights.
Nazis picked blood heritage & religion in the Jews to do the same.
Blacks, their skin color.
Soviet political dissidents, their ideology.
For the Romans against the Christians, their beliefs.
The Khmer Rouge used intellectualism.

When all is said and done, your argument sums simply to an invalid appeal to force: the violent rule of the powerful over the weak.

Usually in such cases, any excuse will do.

Sadly, it seems the pre-born have more humanity than many of the living.

The Raving Atheist at November 16, 2008 9:08 PM

TRA - from a strategic standpoint, what do you think of the possibility of focused medical eugenic notification laws?

For instance, most people are shocked to discover the higher incidence of abortion against Downs children.

Enforcement is another matter, but one step at a time.

It maybe "widely" debated, but it is a false debate. It would be like if people were "widely debating" that women were the sex that give birth. Yeah, we could debate it, and perhaps there could be some sociatal movement to question women's role in reproduction, but it wouldn't change the fact that women give birth.

You just keep circling back to "well it's debated so it's debatable and thus both sides have validity" but this is flawed reasoning. Just because something is being debated doesn't mean that there are factual arguments on either side.

Just because "not everyone" believes in the truth doesn't change the truth. The truth is that there is no Santa Clause. Children believe that there is a Santa Clause. I got into many a debate as a child defending Mr. Clause. Does that mean that my argument had validity? No. Society had perpetuated the lie of Santa Clause, just as the perpetuate the lie that "we don't know when life begins."

This isn't a matter where we can agree to disagree. If you recognize that we see abortion as murder, it should be obvious why we can not compromise on the issue. It would be like telling us that we should compromise on child abuse or infanticide.

I agree that we should work to make abortion less needed/acceptable, but I also believe it should be illegal. The illegality of murder doesn't stop all killings, but it makes them socially unacceptable and insures that the victim is brought justice.

Lauren, my experience has been that people who don't want to acknowledge reality won't.

There's really no logical argument with them.

Virginia,

One last point on the question regarding whether the belief that a fetus is a human being is a "religious" one.

Obviously, even a hardcore atheist woman can get pregnant and think of the fetus as she and her husband's human baby. If someone gave her an abortion-inducing pill, or a doctor retained to remove an ingrown toe nail instead performed an abortion, she might rightly accuse them of killing her child. She could still absolutely and militantly deny the existence God (and even point to the killing as proof of God's non-existence), but her belief that what she lost was human would not be a religious one, even it occurred immediately after conception.

Let's say that the same atheist woman swallowed a marble (or put one in her pocket) and claimed she was pregnant. In that case, you might scientifically say that her belief that the marble was a human being was false, and even that that her belief otherwise was actually "religious" or at least superstitious. But the point is that there is clearly a distinction between a marble and a fetus that science recognizes, and a scientific view of the fetus as human which does not depend even in part on religion.

TRA - from a strategic standpoint, what do you think of the possibility of focused medical eugenic notification laws?

I'm not sure what you mean regarding the "laws". If you mean laws requiring doctors to notify women of potential fetal defects so that they can then counsel them to kill them, I oppose them. Many of my learning-disabled brother's friends have Downs syndrome, and his life would be vastly poorer without them.

I do believe that women should have advance notice of problems so that they can prepare themselves for the difficulties of child-raising (or make arrangements for adoption if they believe themselves unable to raise the child), but obviously the unfettered right to abortion complicates the issue. It's also unclear to me what you mean by "strategic standpoint" -- do you mean, should pro-lifers oppose laws requiring doctors to advise women of potential problems?

If the "strategy" is to frequent the Washington DC cocktail party circuit, then the national leadership is doing wonderfully. (Anyone here ever tried to deal with the NRLC? Aaahhh!)

But if the point is to ever bring America closer to the point of providing legal protection for pre-born babies from being exterminated, then after 40 years of abject failure it should be obvious that this prevailing approach will never work. Horrifyingly, there IS a method that does work with politicians that far lesser movements successfully employ, but our "leadership" would have to come off their high horses to effect such actual progress....

Prolifers shoot themselves in the foot constantly, by funding the opposition.

Cut the cable TV. Turn off the ABC, NBC, CBS. Turn off your print news subscriptions which touted Obama. The internet will be enough.

Reduce your tax contributions by any means which won't land you in jail. Rearrange your finances and interpersonal relationships to accomplish this.

Boycott the companies, charities and organizations which you know are feeding the pro-aborts. Give locally and directly. Forget funding any medical research organizations which lack a public statement opposing embryonic stem cell research.

The side effect of removing the shame from abortion and other inhuman behaviors is that malpractice lawyers can now be directed, in ways never before possible, to feed off of the abortionists.

The Raving Atheist at November 16, 2008 9:39 PM

Sorry about the really broad question. The laws would have to be written. Growing up, my best friend's brother had Downs, (He's an active Special Olympian now) and today, I have a few dear friends who also have Downs.

I would like to see a multi-point law that when a doctor discovers a possible genetic defect in the unborn, that full disclosure has to be given to the woman regarding all aspects surrounding that condition, including support groups etc.

Such a full disclosure requires a signed notification sheet.

States would perform a mandatory collection of data on these conditions/abortions and totals would be publicly available.

Without violating HIPPA, one should be able to see if there are adverse medical conditions occurring in certain areas, and if the preferred solution is abortion vs treatment.

After reading a recent comment to Jill, it seems that medical residents strongly advocate abortion for almost every disorder. Besides the strike against the unborn that Roe levied, I think the trend towards perfection knows no limit, and is doubly cruel.

I tend to see such trends fanning the flames of discrimination against even those who were chosen to be born.

Thoughts?

Obama won't be President forever.

I think the best way is to have pro-life Supreme Court judges appointed in the future.

Strategy for RIGHT NOW:

Email a link to this Fact Sheet on FOCA to everyone you know. Tell them to ask their pastors to put it in Church bulletins on Sundays and preach about it also.

http://www.nchla.org/docdisplay.asp?ID=194

USCCB FOCA Fact Sheet (The "Freedom of Choice Act": Most Radical Abortion Legislation in U.S. History)

" to preserve the status quo until Sarah Palin takes office on January 20, 2013."

Oh God, I hope not. O_O

You betcha!

Just because "not everyone" believes in the truth doesn't change the truth. The truth is that there is no Santa Clause. Children believe that there is a Santa Clause. I got into many a debate as a child defending Mr. Clause. Does that mean that my argument had validity? No. Society had perpetuated the lie of Santa Clause, just as the perpetuate the lie that "we don't know when life begins."

Lauren, I think you're both using different definitions of what "life" is.

We are. I explained the terms of the debate, and she keeps rewriting them using the information that was just debunked.