Stand up against pro-abortion FOCA

Dear Opa,

You are apparently well versed in history, the law and politics so I have some questions for you.

1.  Where in the law is life defined? And if not in law, in the sciences? And if not the sciences, then where? In other words, can the beginning of life be definitively established by law, by science, by consensus, is it a theological abstraction, or does each individual get to decide? When the Human Genome project found “human DNA” in embryos, what does that mean?

2.  If, as you state, life begins at birth, and if life is sacred, how, then, can Obama or anyone for that matter oppose a ban on partial-birth “abortion”? How is “birth” defined? More than 50% out? 100% out? Does the original intent to abort somehow nullify the fact of an actual birth and subsequent killing?

3.  How do you reconcile your two statements “FOCA is NOT intended to make abortion a ‘basic human right’” and later “[FOCA’s] purpose is to defend against… remov[ing] a recognized basic human right and principle on which this country was founded…”

4.  What did president-elect Obama mean in his acceptance speech when he asked us “to join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it’s been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand,” thereby excluding the date of the Declaration of Independence? If rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are excluded from Obama’s “change,” on what will he base this change?

5.  With Roe v. Wade in place, why, then, do we need FOCA? If simply to codify, then why extend the original intent and reach? Why legislate to remove informed consent and parental consent, allow non-licensed physicians to participate, and nullify existing health and safety regulations, to name a few potential, if unintended, effects of FOCA (read FOCA)? How exactly would removing existing laws put in place to protect the woman protect the woman?

6.  At least one political party seeks to make abortion safe, legal, and rare—- are there any other instances where legislation has been sought to protect one’s “right” to take an action that is so undesirable that political parties seek to make them rare? What authentic fundamental human rights do we seek to make “rare”?

7.  Are you so sure that moral principles are merely personal? Is it possible that this world came into being with intrinsic natural laws? No one would argue against the existence of some physical laws, such as gravity. Is it feasible that a supernatural being would build in physical laws and forget the non-physical ones?

In closing, a couple of comments… In your letter, you seem to use choice and freedom as if conscience alone is the only guiding principle. Yet the freedom of which you speak is always circumscribed by outside constraints intended to maintain order and serve the common good. But as one well versed in the law you already know that.

You give “honor” and “glory” to - let me state this accurately - a choice made to undergo a medical process that ends a growing, breathing collection of human cells with the intrinsic potential for human life. I give honor and glory to the One who participated in the creation of that potentiality. And yet you call me “foolish, dangerous, and… despicable”?

In closing, I do want to thank you for pointing out the weaknesses in my argument. I am new to the public forum and your points will help me to better articulate the truth of the matter in the future. I will continue to pray – not to further any personal “agenda” or advance my own choice or will – but to ask that God’s will, not man’s, be done.

Opa….. I asked you once before on the CSE boards why you chose to use a pseudonym instead of revealing your true identity. I don’t believe you ever answered me. One with such strong opinions and such harsh personal criticism of the character of someone you do not know personally, should be able to stand publically on his/her beliefs. Don’t you feel this would foster more productive dialogue? The cloak of anonymity hides more than a person’s identity and allows a much harsher approach to dialogue.
Let’s break your argument down from a linquistic perspective.  Infanticide is defined as the killing of an infant. To “kill” is to deprive of life or cause the death of some “thing” or some “one”.  An infant is defined as a CHILD in the first period of life.  The etymology of “infant” is Latin and is derived from “infans” which means one incapable of speech.  The primary definition of child is: an UNBORN or recently born person and better yet,  it derives from the Middle English “cild” and is akin to the Gothic “kilthei” which means WOMB. There is even some suggestion that it derives from the Sanskrit “jathara” meaning belly! 

The first period of life occurs WITHIN a mother’s womb.

So technically, a better definition of infanticide would be….

Infanticide: depriving life or causing the death of an infant (a child UNBORN in the first period of life), that is incapable of speech

Perhaps, you are male and have never experienced the inexplicable reality of feeling “LIFE” within you. Perhaps you are female and have not been blessed with this experience.

Life is defined as the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body, an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli and reproduction.

Dearest Opa, you are the very same soul at this moment that you were in your mother’s womb .  You are one and the same, your life began not when you left your mother’s womb, but while you were in it, metabolizing the food she gave you, growing from an embryo into a baby and reacting to stimuli such as your mother’s voice, noises, and your mother’s activity levels.
If you or anyone else are not convinced that life begins at conception, I challenge you to view the following online video at: http://www.massmediamail.com/durarealidad/  This video shows physical proof of life within the womb. To hear what women that have have to say, try:
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/index.html

Women need to know the truth about the life that lives within them when they are expecting, the dignity of each woman demands it. Life is precious in all of its forms from conception to natural death. 

Our founding fathers ordered our inalienable rights in a particular way for a reason.  Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Any other order is disordered. The pursuit of happiness (in making personal “choices”) can not trump liberty and must never take the place of life.

I see that our hearts are one in the compassion we both have for these women. Of course we must approach the issues from many directions and you have identified some of them.

BUT to institutionalize infanticide as a destructive means to an end is to endorse ANY action that leads to some economic, emotional, or personal relief. Why do we have laws at all? If my aged father lives with me and it becomes an economic or emotional burden, do I have the right to kill him? All civilized societies that have survived the test of time, including so-called “primitive” tribal nations, have strict taboos against ending a life at any stage.

Don’t fall into the trap of dismissing this solely as a “religious” issue. It is a fundamental human right to be born; what else could the US Declaration of Independence mean by listing the “inalienable rights” as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? Our founding fathers envisioned a government that would protect its people, not endorse the slaughter of its most innocent citizens.