Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

America's Greatest Tragedy: The Killing of Babies by Their Own MothersWomen Ending the Lives of Babies in the Name of ConvenienceJeremiah 1:5 "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."It's one of the most horrible crimes imaginable. A woman becomes pregnant, yet instead of beingfilled with joy and happiness at the thought of becoming a parent, she makes an appointment andhas her baby killed.The saddest of this? The baby hasn't even taken the first breath of air, has never been held, hasnever been rocked to sleep ... and never will. The "mom" took all that away from the baby byending his or her life, calling it abortion.There are far too many people that think a baby that is still in the mother's body growing is not a baby and that it's okay to kill the baby because it's still in the mother's body. Killing is killing,and murder is murder. The fact that the baby is still inside the mother's body doesn't make takinga life anything less than killing. It simply means the baby is still growing inside the mother's body.When a woman is pregnant, she doesn't say her fetus just kicked her. She will say that her baby just kicked her. When a new mom is shopping for things for her baby that's on the way, she won'tsay she went shopping for fetus clothes or a fetus bed, a fetus stroller, fetus bottles, and the like.But rather the mom will say that she went shopping for baby clothes and a baby bed, baby bottles, a baby stroller, etc. She doesn't say she found a cute pink or blue fetus blanket.A pregnant woman, a new mom, will call her baby just that, a baby. Friends and family thatmight make someone handcrafted for the new baby won't give it to the mom at the baby shower and call it a fetus or tissue gift, nor do we have fetus or tissue showers, but rather we have babyshowers.A woman that has only the thought of killing her baby before it's born will no doubt call her babya fetus, as will abortion clinics and those that want you to believe that killing your baby is okayand the thing to do, that there's nothing wrong in murdering your baby before it takes its first breath of air. They call it the medical term of fetus because that makes it easier in their minds tocommit the crime of murdering the baby. After all, if they try to take away the 'baby' out of the baby, then it makes it easier on their conscience to

Many people believe abortion is a moral issue, but it is also a constitutional issue. Itis a woman's right to choose what she does with her body, and it should not bealtered or influenced by anyone else. This right is guaranteed by the ninthamendment, which contains the right to privacy. The ninth amendment states: "Theenumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny ordisparage others retained by the people." This right guarantees the right to women,if they so choose, to have an abortion, up to the end of the first trimester.Regardless of the fact of morals, a woman has the right to privacy and choice to

abort her fetus. The people that hold a "pro-life" view argue that a woman who hasan abortion is killing a child. The "pro-choice" perspective holds this is not the case.A fetus is not yet a baby. It does not posess the criteria derived from ourunderstanding of living human beings. In a notable defense of this position,philosopher Mary Anne Warren has proposed the following criteria for "person-hood": 1) consciousness (of objects and events external and or internal to thebeing), and in particular the capacity to feel pain. 2) reasoning (the developedcapacity to solve new and relatively complex problems) 3) self-motivated activity(activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control)4) the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinitevariety of possible contents, but on indefinltely many possible topics. 5) thepresence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or social, or both.(Taking Sides -Volume 3). Several cases have been fought for the right to choose.Many of these have been hard cases with very personal feelings, but theperserverance showed through and gives us the rights we have today. Here aresome important cases: 1965 - Griswold v. Connecticut - upheld the right to privacyand ended the ban on birth control....Because it is a source of physical and moral harm.An abortion is the removal of an embryo or foetus, [either a potential human life] ora living entity depending on your religious thinking.If you believe that it is a potential life, then you must establish strict guidelines onwho makes the decision to terminate --- Current law argue only physician may abort-- if a person beats a woman --- that person can be charge with homicide. [Physicianonce took the Hippocratic oath which forbids aborting a woman.] Abortion are thenmorally only allowed to save the existing life of the mother.If you believe it is a live then abortion is Murder. To those that remove all aspect of life from this equation "clump of cells" equal tohair or toenails, must admit that this is arbitrary and illogical --- for hair or toenailsare what they are when the excised. A foetus has the potential of being a son ordaughter, an heir, a person with full rights in a set amount of time --- to the "clump"theorist, it metamorphose in a person "magically". Now if this "legal" clumpbecomes a person at the start of "person-hood" could not the laws be written tomake a "person" become a clump of useless tissue and must be excised? NaziGermany, with full announcement of the governments intent to remove the"useless" Mass Murder of the Aged and Infirm Between 1939-1941 about 70,000German citizens (not Jews, Gypsy, et al.) were murder.It was voted on in a Democratic vote to declare infirm people "useless" so that theycould be excised.

If you hold the arguement for foetus that they are "clumps" how many years will itbe before ones parents or son or daughter returns to being an excisable "clump of cells"?

JANUARY 15, 2005 —

Social Security reform could be for Republicans the kind of donnybrook that health care reform was for Democrats in 1994. The magnitude of the political risk is staggering. On Capitol Hill, many Republicanswonder if they are being led off a cliff. What does President Bush think he's doing?Well, he says, there's a Social Security crisis. "The crisis is now," Bush said in December. But he mustknow this isn't true. Economically speaking, stabilizing Social Security's long-term finances is a task of only middling difficulty and importance; it requires no fundamental change in the program and need not betackled right away. As for private Social Security accounts, they are — again, economically speaking — asolution in search of a problem.No, what Bush and the Republicans are focused on is not the economy, stupid. It is conservative socialengineering on the grandest possible scale.When people talk about Social Security reform, they usually mean "reforms," plural. They're usuallylinking two kinds of change that are conceptually and mechanically distinct. Reform No. 1 would reducethe growth of benefits, or raise taxes, to bring the program into long-term fiscal balance. Reform No. 2would structurally revamp the program by creating private accounts: Part of your Social Security payrolltax would go into a bank account with your name on it, to be used to finance your future benefits, insteadof going to the U.S. Treasury to finance the benefits of current retirees, as it does nowCongress can make one reform, both reforms, or neither. Doing either, by itself, is politically difficult, butdoing both together — simultaneously cutting and restructuring the program — is startlingly audacious.That is what Bush seems likely to propose. Why take the chance? On close examination, the economicpayoffs are surprisingly unimpressive. The moral and political dividends are, potentially, another matter.The fiscal payoff. Social Security is often said to be insolvent, because in about 2018 its benefit paymentswill exceed the revenues it collects through its dedicated payroll tax. Then the general budget will begin tosubsidize payouts. But this is no kind of crisis. Social Security's surpluses have subsidized generalbudget spending for decades; if the government needs to use general revenues to subsidize SocialSecurity, that will be no tragedy.The real fiscal crisis is not that Social Security will be technically insolvent in a few years, it's that thewhole U.S. government is genuinely insolvent right now. Washington's large deficits suck in and burn off capital that could otherwise be invested for future economic growth.Indeed, Social Security's difficulties pale next to those of Medicare, which is headed for a real crisis.Current projections show spending for Medicare overtaking spending for Social Security in the early2020s, and then soaring right off the chart, whereas Social Security outlays level off (as a share of grossdomestic product) in the mid-2030s.