HOW I SEE IT: Abortion continues to destroy lives
Published: November 21, 2009
On Jan. 22, 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States in the Roe v. Wade abortion decision declared that a whole group of people no longer had the right to life (liberty and the pursuit of happiness) as guaranteed by our Constitution.
Nine unelected Supreme Court justices imposed the abortion morality on all 50 states regardless of the will of the people in those states. Since that infamous decision, 51 million babies have died from surgical abortion in the United States. 51 million!
Can we ever begin to comprehend such a vast number of infant deaths?
For every infant killed by abortion, there is a wounded mother. Can a mother choose to destroy her offspring before birth and not suffer some consequence of her decision? There are those who would have us believe that having an abortion is no worse than having a tooth extracted or an appendix removed.
Do you want to know what women who have had an abortion say about their experience?
Go to silentnomoreawareness.org and hear their testimonies. Many of them have suffered nightmares, suicidal thoughts and attempts, crying bouts, depression and feelings of regret, shame and guilt as well as drug and alcohol abuse.
More than 150,000 women have attended various abortion after-care programs around the country sponsored by Silent No More. They have ministered to women well into their 50s and 60s who continue to regret their abortion.
Do not buy the abortion lie! Do we really believe it is better to kill our unborn little ones than to find an alternative? Any crisis pregnancy center will assist a pregnant woman find that alternative.
Women deserve better than abortion, and babies deserve to live and not be sacrificed on the altar of choice as a means of solving the problems of others.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Abortion is a eugenics program. The owners of this planet love death and destruction. They love it that people are killing themselves and others.
JHardg, “who are these people (I) refer to who are not dissuaded by reason or by law?” As I stated “I think those who herein have supported this article have clearly demonstrated the base argument they have for opposing abortion; it conflicts with their religious beliefs.” They have offered no argument but their religious belief. Those I have in mind are anyone who thinks their particular religious beliefs are a legitimate reason to enact a law. I do not assume that this is the mindset of everyone who is against the practice of abortion. I have yet to hear herein one of their arguments that justifies a law forcing me to comply with it. They have the “right” to freely choose, so do I. I accept that, they do not. I am not confused. People who use their rights to legitimately try to persuade others about anything never angers me. I support their/my rights. They argue that a fetus has a right to life, that it is a baby, etc. I disagree pointing out that the Supreme Court agrees with me, that it has considered and rejected their argument, ruling that the unborn have never had “rights” under our constitution. I therefore argue that since this is our Law, to change it requires them to get an amendment to our Constitution passed and I have challenged them to try. They can’t merely pass a “law,” because it would be unconstitutional. I don’t want to argue about anyone’s definition of who is a Christian and who is not based on their particular “paradigm.” But I will say that I find it impossible to agree with you that it could be someone who believes both that Christ is God and follows Christ’s teachings as set forth in scriptures. Christ did not proclaim himself to be either God or God’s Son. Others proclaimed that. Scriptures say that Christ considered himself to be as he proclaimed himself “the son of man” and that no one should consider anyone born of a woman God. Christians are both “able” to have and to “support” the right of others to have an abortion. Many to most do.
Who are these people you refer to who are not dissuaded by reason or by law? Perhaps you are confusing myself and every other “pro-lifer” I have ever met outside of a newsweek magazine or prime time news story. When you spoke ealier of myself and others imposing our religious beliefs onto you, was it these infamous fanatics that you had in mind? If so, then you are correct in you definition of imposing. However, you are incorrect in your assumption that this is the mindset of anyone who is against the practice of abortion. I previously thought you were being hypocritical in defending peoples rights under the constitution and then becoming angry when people attempted to use their rights to lawfully persuade others, including lawmakers, to make changes to our laws. Now I see that you are just confused. Confused by the medias portrayal of the gun-slinging/pipe-bomb building anti-abortion lunatic. Also the people who think that their ridiculous protesting, even if legal, will amount to anything. (I think this is why our laws tolerate peaceful protest. Because the government knows that all it does is make the protesters look like a bunch of idiots).
I will assume you are right that 77% of Americans assert they are christains. However, a christain (unless re-defined to agree with someone own paradigm) is someone who professes belief in Jesus Christ as God and is committed to following His commands and teaching as set forth in scripture. Is a christain capable of having an abortion? Yes ( 1 John 1:8-10). Is a christain capable of supporting abortion? No ( Romans 7:14-25).
“That most Christians disagree doesn’t matter to them. They believe they are right.“
It’s not a matter of disagreement. Christains disagree, amongst eachother, on matters all the time. It is not “us” who are right. It is God. Jesus said “If you love me, obey my commandments” The true love of Christ, therefore, is regulated by the observation of his doctrine as the only rule. So how can one claim to be a christain and not love Jesus?
“They believe that nothing they do to “spread their word” is “wrong.” I disagree.“
Once again, if you are speaking of those fanatics, you are probably right. If you are speaking of one who is committed to following the commands of Jesus, you are wrong.
“I think those who herein have supported this article have clearly demonstrated the base argument they have for opposing abortion; it conflicts with their religious beliefs; e.g. that life begins at conception, that all human life is “sacred,” that it is a “sin” to have an abortion, that God’s laws are superior to man’s, etc.“
Yes, your probably right again. It is not the christians duty to force thier beliefs on anyone. Niether can the christain expect to persuade any mans mind by his own cleverness ( John 6:44).
If you do not like what I am saying and want me to shut up, I will. I will respect that. However I will not “water down” the what scripture says (Jude 1:3).
GetALife, rogersk is right; based on the Fox poll mentioned herein by rjma, there are about 69.2 million people in the USA who do not favor abortion. I say that is a lot of people, even though many of them are pro-choice. But that leaves about 231.8 million people who agree with you. Many more people. She is also right that each side has a right to their opinion. If this was an opinion contest you are the clear winner. But this isn’t an opinion contest. It’s a legal issue…a constitutional issue. I think those who herein have supported this article have clearly demonstrated the base argument they have for opposing abortion; it conflicts with their religious beliefs; e.g. that life begins at conception, that all human life is “sacred,” that it is a “sin” to have an abortion, that God’s laws are superior to man’s, etc. They are a small segment of the about 77% of Americans who assert they are Christians. On this issue, they do not represent the decision – free choice - held by most Christians. They can not live peacefully within other than a fundamentalist order. They are compelled by their beliefs to “spread the word” as they believe that word to be. That most Christians disagree doesn’t matter to them. They believe they are right. Although I respect them and our Constitution that guarantees them the right to hold and live their beliefs, they will not accept that they have no right to impose their beliefs on others. They are not dissuaded by reason or by law. Therefore, they are a problem among us, others. I’ll stand strong against their tactics. They believe that nothing they do to “spread their word” is “wrong.” I disagree.
JAubrey, thank you. I couldn’t have said it better. Goodbye rogersk.
Not me, rogersk, just quoting Jesus.
How you see it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans to me.
thanks jaubrey…..I am sure you’re right but I call it like I see it.
Matthew 5:22 (New International Version)
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,‘ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!‘ will be in danger of the fire of Hades. [CSE censored Biblical term used in place of Hades, but I suspect you know what it is.]
OPA,,,since I will not be posting to these forums anymore I have something to say to you that you not only deserve but your nosiness will compel you to read. You are a fool of the first order. You are where you do not belong and will never be accepted and if you think you will you are delusional. Nothing you can do, short of completely changing your character, can alter this you will never do that. .BTW, you and Dawkins are clones. I don’t know how you managed that but I know you did. So be it.
JHarding, your honesty demands both appreciation and comment.
Point 1
You ask, “What is truth? What test must something pass to be truth?“
Neither your nor Pontius Pilate is the first or last to ask this question. (This is a rhetorical statement. There is no proof that Pontius Pilate ever asked the question.)
Aristotle’s test of truth may be the best we currently have. Truth, according to his definition, is the correspondence between what is said and what is.
If what is said is not what is, it is not truth.
If what is said is what is, it is truth.
You say that “Our beliefs will determine what we hold as truth. If you seek truth it will always end up being in argeement with your beliefs. When any of us seek truth we adjust the truth (choose our side) in accordance with our beliefs.“
Since you say so, I must accept that this statement corresponds to what is in your case. In your case, your beliefs determine what you accept to be truth. No matter what the evidence may be to the contrary, anything that is inconsistent with your beliefs must be denied.
That is the historic religious viewpoint. If one accepts a revelation, that revelation becomes, a priori, the test of all other statements. This is, for example, the final source for Thomas Aquinas.
For the religious mind, what has been revealed on Mt. Sinai, through Jesus the Nazarene, through Saul/Paul the Pharisee, or through Mohammed the Prophet, to name but a few sources of revelation, becomes the sine qua non of philosophic inquiry. Anything that agrees with the revelation is true; anything that does not, is false. This is the point of view you have stated you accept.
A scientific viewpoint, as espoused and articulated by Opa, is quite different. In this viewpoint truth still exists, but our understanding of it is provisional, based on our ability to test and validate our expressions of it. The “flat earth” theory was widely accepted as true, but had to be revised when facts invalidated it.
Similarly, Newtonian physics was accepted as provable, and therefore true, until quantum mechanics required a redefinition of the current understanding of truth.
Opa’s statement that he seeks truth and adjusts his beliefs and action in accordance with truth not his beliefs, is not impossible, as you assert. It is the essence of the scientific mindset. Seeking truth is the scientist’s goal, whether or not it is consistent with what he or she currently believes. What science accepts at a given point is not always right, it is the best we know at the time. What the majority believes, or what the Constitution says, is absolutely irrelevant to the question of what is true. [Let me agree with you that some self-styled “scientists” hold their beliefs so firmly that they are more religious than scientific.]
Point 2
You wrote, “You said that if I was a Christian, which I am, then I have commited sin by lying. You are correct. However, even if I were not a Christian I still would have committed the same sin. Kind of brings us around to my first point again.“
Your argument again relies on an a priori assumption that the dogmas of Christianity are true and that sin, as defined by Christianity, exists. For the Christian, an act that is sinful is sinful regardless of the belief system of the actor.
However, if the dogmas of Christianity are not true, then it may be that there is no “sin,“ whether the actor is a Christian (one who accepts the dogmas of Christianity) or not a Christian.
rogersk, here is what you wrote elsewhere on this website
[Begin quote]
Posted by rogersk on November 28, 2009 at 9:44 pm
caveman…You can get by with spelling d—- as dam if we’re talking about horses or a horse’s anatomy, but not in this case. I, frankly don’t give a d—-about most of the crap that is discussed on these forums as it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. I just enjoy getting peoples’ goats and it is so easy to do with most of the posters.
[End quote]
As this is just a game to you, and you need to get my goat for your enjoyment, here’s my offer to you.
My goat is yours. I give it to you freely and with compassion. Enjoy it to your heart’s content.
I decline to play your game. This is my first and last communication with you. Please get your jollies with someone else.
Have a nice, if bizarre, life.
Advertisement