Hello
I have undertaken the task of building a new Group. Pro Life Conservatives of Sagamore. We will meet in the Town Hall at Sagamore Island, 1st floor left hand side as you enter the building. Please stop by I have put in some links to different websites and some notecards.
This has turned out to be extremely difficult for me. I have always thought abortion was something that was necessary to some degree. And I feel most of us here in the United States agree with that stand on this issue.
At one time awhile back I had completely different thoughts about this issue I'm sorry to say, for I felt is was a woman's right to Choose what she did with her own body. Now I understand what my father meant when he said you will grow to become a completely different person and I have.
On January 22, 1973 the supreme court changed this country and turned us down a path that will eventually bring about our destruction for we have lost site of the very core beliefs of what this nation stands for.
When Does life begin? Any woman with a Conscience will know this.
Just to be clear here Wiki for Conscience says.
Conscience ability or faculty that distinguishes whether one's actions are right or wrong. In plain English, it is a person's inner sense of what is right or what is wrong morally. It leads to feelings of remorse when one does things that go against his/her moral values, and to feelings of rectitude or integrity when one's actions conform to our moral values. It is also the attitude which informs one's moral judgment before performing any action. The extent to which such moral judgments are based in reason has been a matter of controversy almost throughout the history of Western philosophy.
Had the court looked at what Dr. Fritz Baumgartner,MD says about when life begins they may have made a different judgement then.
Life Begins at the Beginning.
We can approach abortion from many perspectives: Biological, embryological, genetic, philosophical, social and economic, at the very least. As for the first three – my approach as a scientist, physician, surgeon, and simply someone who finished medical school, is factual.
There is no more pivotal moment in the subsequent growth and development of a human being than when 23 chromosomes of the father join with 23 chromosomes of the mother to form a unique, 46-chromosomed individual, with a gender, who had previously simply not existed. Period. No debate. Says Dr Baumgartner.
He goes on to say,
There is no more appropriate moment to begin calling a human "human" than the moment of fertilization. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise, because it would be a degradation of factual embryology to say it would be any other moment. For example, some pro-abortion zealots and even, shockingly, some disingenuous physicians claim it is the moment of primitive notochord formation (nonsense!) or, even more absurdly, the moment of implantation. (It defies sanity to claim that the implantation of a developing blastocyst onto a uterine wall defines humanity more than does the completion of an entirely new DNA map, which defines a new organism's existence).
And to say that "size" is a determinant of humanity, of course, is an unscientific reason to deny an embryo his or her human status. In any event, it is an embryological reality, which no embryology textbook on earth denies, that at the moment of fertilization a new human being is formed.
End of quote.
Having heard the tapes of Roe V Wade this seemed to me what the courts were asking for to be defined by both of the Texas lawyers.
How they failed to do so is beyond me.
A human Life at any stage of development is still a human life and we must recognize this as fact.
Has this court been wrong before?
Heres a ruling they made you tell me.
In Prigg v. Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793, stating that slaveowners have a right to retrieve their "property." In so doing, the court rules that Pennsylvania’s anti-kidnapping law is unconstitutional. At the same time, the Supreme Court declares that enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law is a federal responsibility in which states are not compelled to participate. Between 1842 and 1850, nine Northern states pass new personal liberty laws which forbid state officials from cooperating in the return of alleged fugitive slaves and bar the use of state facilities for that purpose.
So if this court can state that one man is the "property" of another then I see how they can think A woman has a right to Kill her unborn child.
Medical staff inject either the heart drug digoxin or potassium chloride into the baby to kill him or her in order to prefrom an abortion. How can this be? A Doctor has sworn an oath that states he will do no harm. A baby that is in fact in good health with a mother carrying this baby in good health has no need for an abortion.
I will be adding this this at a later time.
Thank You
Sphere: Related Content
Posts
