1)
"..
You cannot legislate morality.."
When John Kennedy was running for President, he said that passing civil rights legislation was one of his most important priorities because it was simply the morally correct thing to do. Kennedy clearly understood that the only legitimate reason for making laws is to achieve a moral objective.
Thus, when pro-choice advocates try to argue that "you cannot legislate morality" they are simply trying to convince society to ignore a blatant immorality.
Laws are based upon those actions which society accepts, or which society finds unacceptable and will not tolerate. In any decent society, the taking of an innocent life cannot be justified under any circumstances. This is why abortion is wrong and why the defenseless child needs to be protected by law.
2) "...
we should trust women to make good moral decisions...."
Societies pass laws based on the realization that people cannot always be trusted to do what is right. The fact is that all human beings are capable of making immoral decisions, especially in a time of personal crisis.
No rational person would oppose laws against rape on the basis that we should trust men to make their own moral choices.
Laws are enacted to protect innocent human beings from having injustices inflicted upon them. That is precisely the reason why innocent babies in their mothers' wombs need to be protected.
3)
"...
govt. should not tell a woman what to do with her body..."
To suggest that there are no circumstances in which the government can tell people what to do has no merit whatsoever. Our govt. routinely enacts laws which prevent people from doing certain actions both to their own bodies and other peoples' bodies. By way of example, we are not legally allowed to sell our bodies for sex, or take drugs, or sell organs.
However, the most important issue is that the woman's body is not the only body involved in an abortion. The baby, as a matter of scientific fact, is a separate human being from the mother with its own genetic code, blood type and fingerprints.
The fatal "choice" being made does not relate to the mother's body, but that of the innocent child.
4)
"...
choice..."
Abortion advocates do not want to talk about facts or science, but they love to talk about "choice". They refuse to be called "pro-abortion", but they gladly accept the label, "pro-choice".
Indeed, nothing has so clouded and confused the politics of the abortion debate more than the misconstrued application of this word. For nearly 40 years, abortion advocates have sought to bestow upon "choice" a nobility of its own, thereby avoiding discussion of what is being chosen.
The fact is that "choice" is nothing apart from the context to which it is applied. Laws against rape, murder, assault, theft and drunk driving (to name afew) are all "anti-choice". They remove choice in order to protect amore fundamental freedom.
In the final analysis, we are only free to choose so long as that choice does not harm another person. For example, a person cannot choose to rape another person because rape is a violent assault on another human being. And so is abortion.
5)
"...
exporting American virtues, rather than abortion, population control etc..."
Our media often tries to convince us that it is America's 'lust for oil" and"neo-colonialism" that are responsible for terrorism. The simple truth for today's hatred of western culture is a minority of Muslims choose a radical interpretation of the Koran. However, another factor is at work, which our media deliberately ignores.
For the past 40 years, the U.S., both directly and through international institutions like the World Bank, has been exporting population control programs under theguise of "family planning" and "reproductive health". Billions of dollars a year are being poured into programs that promote abortion, fund coercive sterilization and contraceptive campaigns. These programs reach into foreign schools with promiscuous sex education programs and encourage governments to intrude into the private lives of their citizens.
Such programs create bitter resentment in Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike. They should have no place in our foreign aid programs.
On the contrary, we need to export the virtues of America. This involves, among other things, free enterprise, majority rule, minority rights and religious toleration. However, we should not be exporting radical secularism, the promotion of the feminist conception of the family, abortion and so-called "comprehensive sex education".
This misguided policy together with the corrupting elements of Hollywood only generates new recruits for those radicals who would attack the "GreatSatan".
6)
"...
Planned Parenthood marketing..."
Planned Parenthood is constantly trying to market itself as something it is not. A recent radio advertising campaign stated, "Planned Parenthood is more than you think". This raises a number of questions.
What "charity" has filed lawsuits opposing parental rights more than 25 times in the past decade? Which organization teamed up with the ACLU to ensure the legality of widespread pornography on the Internet? What "non-profit" makes a profit in excess of $60 million per annum? What "non-profit" receives more than $300 million from taxpayers annually, yet claims to need even more public funding?
The organization, which calls itself Planned Parenthood (which itself is a misnomer) provides the answer to each of these questions. As the nation's leading abortion provider and promoter of teenage promiscuity, Planned Parenthood is certainly, "more than you think"
7)
"...
Planned Parenthood =Abortion.."
Planned Parenthood carries out deceptive and perverse marketing to portray itself as a compassionate and caring "women's health provider".
However, Planned Parenthood's propaganda is certainly not supported by the facts, which are:
* PP is responsible for terminating the lives of more unborn babies than any other organization in the U.S. and possibly the world.
* PP has a market share of around 10% of this huge billion dollar plus industry and makes over $60 million profit every year, a large percentage of which is derived from abortion. In addition, although national abortion figures are decreasing, the number of abortions carried out by PP and its market share is increasing.
* PP's so-called "comprehensive sex education programs" teach young people that abortion is a viable alternative to pregnancy and many other ideas which the vast majority of parents find objectionable.
* PP can be counted upon to oppose any and all common sense legislation to try to reduce the number of abortions, including laws ensuring informed consent and parental involvement in minors' abortions. They even oppose health standards for abortion clinics and laws requiring abortion record-keeping, while favoring coverage in health care reform.
This can all be summarized by saying that they support anything which increases its already considerable profits.
8)
"..
abortion certainly does NOT empower women..."
For many years, pro-abortion advocates have argued that abortion empowers women.
To verify whether this is true or not, look at the faces of women entering abortion clinics, such as those run by Planned Parenthood, to see if any of them look empowered.
What you will see is fear, desperation, profound sadness, and resignation. What you will never see is women who feel empowered and in control.
In fact, if you are looking for the most oppressed, most subservient women in ours society, check out the waiting room of your local Planned Parenthood clinic.
9)
"...
when life begins..."
Pro-choice advocates are invariably loathe to acknowledge the most important medical and scientific fact of all, namely that life begins at conception. Indeed, they will find no medical textbooks or scientific reference works that say that life begins at any time other than at conception.
Many are no doubt aware that some of the world's most prominent scientists and physicians recently testified at a Senate committee that life begins at conception. At these same hearings, the pro-choice lobby, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would (or could) contradict or even question this accepted fact.
Moreover, pro-choice advocates often accuse pro-lifers of having no plan for all those lives "forcibly brought into being". When they say this, they often appear resentful that some lives are being saved, instead of aborted. This is surprising in that pro-choice rhetoric insists that they want abortion to be "safe, legal and rare," despite the fact that more than 3,000 abortions are carried out each and every day.
Another fact that is often ignored the is that there are more than 3,000 crisis pregnancy centers in the United States staffed almost entirely by pro-life volunteers. These centers, unlike abortion clinics, offer expectant mothers a real "choice" other than abortion, and provide post-pregnancy medical and other assistance free of charge. So where as the abortion industry has raked in hundreds of millions of dollars since abortion was legalized in 1973, the motive of pro-lifers, in offering their time and money to support women in problem pregnancy situations, is entirely selfless.
10)
"...
agenda of Planned Parenthood.."
I refer to the letter which professed that Planned Parenthood has "no personal agenda." The response to this allegation is simple: the facts do not lie.
Planned Parenthood, the great champion of "choice", aborts 5,095 American babies every week. That figure (which incidentally is Planned Parenthood's own number) is considerably more than the 3,000 Americans that died in the terrorist attack on September 11.
Planned Parenthood is the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S. -- behind non-Planned Parenthood abortions (19,700 a week), heart disease (12,500 a week) and cancer (10,500 a week).
Planned Parenthood is a billion dollar business and makes tens of millions of dollars of profit each year. It claims to want to make abortion "rare," a most peculiar description given the current death toll. Indeed, this is similar to the tobacco companies claiming that they do not want people to smoke. Follow the money. Does anyone really believe them?
Whatever Planned Parenthood claims, there is but one tragic response: 5,095 a week.
11)
"....
pro-choice movement having to re-package itself.."
Modern science and medicine has rendered it impossible for the movement to argue, as they did in prior years, that the child in the mother's womb is merely a "blob of tissue". So, they are caught between a rock and a hard-place. The more they begrudgingly acknowledge the humanity of the unborn, the more tragic and innocent is the picture of the fully-formed child in the mother's womb now seen through ultrasound images.
The more compassionate they try to appear, the more indefensible becomes their support for the partial birth abortion procedure and other inhumane practices, which turns the birth canal into a death canal.
The shifting of the debate has forced the pro-choice movement to abandon the false rhetoric of sexual liberation and feminism and portray women's "rights" as a privacy issue and a regrettable, yet necessary evil. But the more they try to moderate the message, the worse it becomes for their cause, since the reality and ugliness of abortion only highlights the artificiality of their cosmetic changes.
Meanwhile, the pro-life movement has made many mistakes in presenting its case effectively, but it has achieved one success: The abortion debate is now more focused on the fact that it is a fundamental moral issue and not "a choice".
12)
"...
abortion removes the unloved and unwanted.."
I was saddened when I read a letter which appeared to justify abortion because "it does away with the unwanted and unloved." What a callous, selfish and inhumane mentality!
Are we to value life only if it is "productive" or "useful" to us, or happens to be "in favor" at any given time? What about children who become "unwanted" after birth? Should we allow mothers or fathers to murder such children, just because they are considered a "burden?"
After all, this is precisely the reason given by Susan Smith for drowning her two young sons -- because they were coming between her and her lover and had therefore become "unwanted."
But what makes the crime any different had she been eight months pregnant with her twins and aborted them to keep her boyfriend? Presumably, ardent pro-abortionists, such as the writer, would have applauded her for making a sensible, morally-correct decision based on her own best interests.
The truth is that there is no justice in a system that allows innocent people to be harmed at the whim of others. Just as government has the responsibility and the right to prevent armed robbery, slavery and rape, it has the same responsibility and right to prevent the killing of innocent human beings, including those waiting to be born.
13)
"...
embryonic stem cell research..."
Embryonic stem cell research has been held out by the media and others as the miracle cure to suffering, handicapped people who desperately seek consolation and some hope. The tragedy is that there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support this conclusion.
Just consider the facts. No approved treatments have been obtained using embryonic stem cells. No human trials are being done. After 20 years of research, embryonic stem cells are not being used to treat people.
Scientists have spent a whole generation to find that embryonic stem cells are, at best, unreliable.
Nature itself seems to react against their use since they tend to produce tumors,cause transplant rejection or form the wrong cells.
In contrast, adult stem cells have proven themselves time and again. These cells can be obtained without killing human life. They are practical and ethical.Typically drawn from the bone marrow of patients, they have an excellent track record being used clinically over 30,000 times.
Advocates of embryonic stem cell research would have us divert funding from these very successful and proven treatments and instead pour public money into those that have failed; throwing good money after bad.
So why is the media promoting tactics to raise false hopes for embryonic stemcells and condemning those who oppose such delirium as cruel and heartless religious, conservatives? The answer appears to be that embryonic stem cell delirium is not a biological or even psychological malady. It is a sad byproduct of our culture of death.
It is a moral illness that deadens the sensitivity to any moral law. It causes society to lose its bearings and overturns all moral barriers that stand in itsway, even when common sense and economics suggest otherwise.
14)
"....
.Roe v. Wade...right to privacy..."
In Roe vs. Wade, our Supreme Court held that women have a constitutional right to privacy, and that includes abortion.
The word "abortion" is not found anywhere in the Constitution. Interestingly, the word "privacy" is also totally absent. Yet, the court said that a constitutional right to privacy is found "emanating from a penumbra " of the liberty clause of the Constitution.
This is pure nonsense and these verbal gymnastics are a perfect example of "judicial activism" which simply means that the Supreme Court started with the political conclusion it wanted and blatantly twisted the Constitutionto make it fit. In short, the majority of judges who decided the case had a political agenda and manipulated our Constitution.
Not withstanding the lack of legal justification for the decision in Roe vs. Wade, one has to ask why should any right to privacy allow an expectant mother to abort her baby. Indeed, all rights under the Constitution have limits and there are many things which occur in private that the law does not allow. Before society can say that someone's right to participate in a certain activity is derived from his or her right to privacy, it must first answer the question, "The privacy to do what?"
In the case of abortion, the question is whether a woman's right to privacy supersedes her child's right to life. To say that it does is to contend that every right expressed in the Constitution has limits, except the one which is not expressed, but had to be contrived "emanating from a penumbra".
The only legitimate view is that when one person's "choice" will cost another human being his or her life, that "choice" cannot be considered a matter of privacy.
15)
"...
abortion and poverty/crime..."
Abortion advocates often argue that the unborn babies of poor mothers are better off aborted and abortion reduces the crime rate.
However,the truth is that the violence of abortion has begot more violence and crime, not less. The pro-choice people have had more than 30 years to weed out all the "unwanted children" yet, we have more child abuse, more spousal abuse, more deadbeat dads, more gangs, more drugs, more homelessness and more crime. The list goes on and on.
By stating that the children of poor people are less entitled to have their lives protected than those of the rich, the writer is plainly of the view that the economic status of a family should be what determines whether children are worthy to be born or not. Laws against robbery and drug-dealing might impact the poor more than the rich, but that does not prevent us from passing and enforcing them. The reason is simple: Robbery and drug dealing, like abortion,is wrong, regardless of the socio-economic class of hypothetical people who might commit these activities.
The solution to poverty is not found in killing the children of the poor. We have been doing that since 1973. Our experience proves that it clearly does not work. Killing poor children is only the solution of "choice" for wealthy elitists. Perhaps a hidden agenda is at work here.
16)
"...
.the issue of abortion is so divisive...both sides too entrenched...to solve."
You are absolutely correct that no issue is more divisive, with more diametrically opposed opinions than the issue of abortion.
With respect however, you are absolutely wrong that these entrenched positions renders it pointless to debate a practice which takes the lives of around 1.2 million children each year in the U.S.
An analogy can be drawn with slavery. It is not too long ago that slavery, like abortion, was the law of the land. Similarly, each side had unyielding positions. Like the abortion industry today, defenders of slavery diverted attention toward philosophical concepts of "choice" and "who decides" (a matter of privacy) because they could not allow the public to look at what was being chosen or decided.
Thus, in the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, Douglas said in defense of slavery, "I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the peoplefavoring slavery , but let them settle that matter for themselves".
You will note that Douglas' argument is exactly similar to the "pro-choice" argument today. In fact, if you look at Douglas' entire speech, you can substitute the word abortion everytime slavery is mentioned and the speech could be used to "defend" abortion today.
In conclusion, in spite of seemingly immovable opinions on the subject, debate on this life and death issue is vital-----the same as it was vital to discuss the inhumanity of slavery in the mid 19th century. It took many decades for society to realize that regardless of "privacy and choice" the practice of slavery was simply indefensible. The same applies to abortion today.
17)
"...
comparing abortion to slavery is insulting.."
Many pro-abortion advocates find the analogy between abortion and slavery "insulting". So let us have debate on the subject.
If the facts are presented to the public, the similarities are undeniable. Slave-owners held the position that blacks were not developed enough to be treated as human beings. Today, pro-abortion advocates believe that the child in the mother's womb is not sufficiently developed to be treated as a human being (regardless of medical textbooks) and therefore can be aborted at will.
The principle is not only the same, but the pro-abortion position violates the fundamental right that humans are not developed or born, but are "created equal....with certain unalienable rights for the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness." It goes without saying that the rights to "liberty and happiness" are meaningless if one is denied the right to LIFE.
18)
"...
abstinence only education is effective.."
Recent articles on the Mathematical Policy Report sought to undermine the benefits of abstinence only education for our children.
Two new reports, which contradict the findings of the Mathematical Report have not received media attention. A study by the Institute for Research and Evaluation shows convincing evidence that abstinence only sex education is highly effective. Dr. Stan Weed, who conducted the newer study, explains that the Mathematical study erroneously selected subjects exclusively from high-risk demographics and concentrated on subjects who only received abstinence only sex education in their preadolescent years, with no further training or follow-up in the crucial adolescent and teen years.
Moreover, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently released a study of what is called Comprehensive Sexual Education, the type advocated by Planned Parenthood. Their findings concluded that overwhelmingly these comprehensive curricula rarely, if ever, mention abstinence, but instead focus almost entirely on contraception and so-called other safer practices. Two interesting points emerge from this study. Fifteen percent of women using condoms for contraception experience an unintended pregnancy during the first year of typical use and 20 percent of adolescents, under the age of 18, using condoms for contraception get pregnant within one year.
19)
"...
.today's lack of morals... and Planned Parenthood..."
There is increasing evidence that our culture is obsessed with immediate gratification and a disposition that anything goes, as long as it feels good. The consequences of this selfish and reckless attitude is apparent everywhere in our society; STD's, crime, teen pregnancies, abortion etc have all increased dramatically.
One organization, more than any other, has been responsible for the promotion of this decline in morals and behavior. Planned Parenthood (PP) has consistently refused to give our children a clear message of “right” and “wrong.” It seeks not to educate our children in moral values, but to indoctrinate them into the Humanist philosophy that proclaims there is no objective moral code, and that right and wrong can be decided solely by the individual.
Thus, in a Los Angeles Times article, Faye Wattleton of PP said, “PP's concern is not to convey ‘shoulds’ or ‘should nots.’” Any school program endorsed by PP will give children complete information on how to have sex. The children will be given no moral guidance in a PP program and will be told they can do it or not do it depending on how they feel. While this concept of no absolute rights or wrongs may be embraced by some people, it is rejected by most.
PP is upset only if sex results in “unwanted” births. Planned Parenthood’s sex education programs are certainly not about telling children how to avoid sex.They are, rather, designed to indoctrinate our children into what PP calls “responsible sexuality.” By this PP means it is perfectly fine for kids to have sex as long as they avoid pregnancy; or if they do get pregnant, have an abortion.
As parents, we must wake up to the irresponsible and deadly agenda being vigorously promoted by PP as a matter of urgency.
20)
"...
abstinence education v. PP's comprehensive sex education..."
I refer to the letter from the public relations Director of Planned Parenthood who denounced abstinence education and advocated Planned Parenthood's "comprehensive sex education".
For about fifty years, Planned Parenthood has been teaching our children this "comprehensive sex education". During that time, STD's, unwed pregnancies, child abuse and abortion has skyrocketed. Clearly, an education which places emphasis on experimentation with dangerous behavior and reliance upon contraception does not work. In fact, a recent Health and Human Services study recently concluded that such programs, "exaggerate the effectiveness of condoms and encourage a false sense of security".
Further evidence to refute Planned Parenthood's misleading publicity can be found in the recent results of a study by the Journal of Research on Adolescence,which showed a clear correlation between abstaining teens and success at school. The results show a corresponding behavioral problem with low grades,alcohol, drug use and drop-out rates for sexually active teens.
The moral is clear: teaching our kids abstinence results in success; teaching them dissolute sexual activity results in failure.
21)
"...
there are already too many children in homes and foster care..."
I refer to Ms..... letter which attempted to justify abortion because, "there are already over half a million children in the U.S. foster care system".
With respect, this argument is disingenuous and indefensible. The chances of a newborn baby not being adopted are practically zero, regardless of race or circumstances. The problem in adoption is not babies, but older children (manyof whom are not legally adoptable) who come into the adoption system long after their birth.
When the abortion industry tries to justify aborting children by saying there are children who are not getting adopted, they are talking about two separate and unrelated groups of children. The interesting thing is that the children they want to abort are the ones who are the easiest to place for adoption and therefore, not part of the problem.
How is a14 year old girl who needs a loving home helped by taking the life of an unborn baby? Aborting a totally unrelated group of children who are not hard to place will not help her a bit.
The type of pro-choice rhetoric embraced by Ms...... and her organization often counters that if the people who want to adopt babies could not do so, they might adopt these older children already in the system. However, it would be hard to imagine a more repugnant form of extortion that this argument. What they are really saying is, "In order to make adoptive parents take the older children we think they should adopt, we will abort the babies they want to adopt". Few statements speak better to their moral bankruptcy than that one!
22)
"...
Abortion is a women's issue..."
In today's (article/ letter).......put forward the notion that abortion is the prime example of a "woman's issue".
This not only over-simplifies the issue and is sexist, but it also ignores the biological reality that every time an expectant mother "chooses" to abort her baby, she is also terminating the life of a father's child.
This attitude also ignores the vitally important role men play in abortion. The overwhelming majority of people who carry out abortions and make a living from it, are men. Also, the sad fact is that abortion permits men to be sexually irresponsible since they will not get pregnant and the decision to abort precludes them from having to pay child support.
Studies show that abortion is not about a woman's freedom to choose according to her conscience, but most women decide to proceed against their consciences. Statistics suggest that in around 95% of cases, the male partner played a crucial role in the decision and up to 60% of the time, abortions are coerced upon women by dominating or abusive partners. A former security guard at a clinic recently testified that women were routinely threatened by men, who escorted them to the clinic to make sure they underwent their scheduled abortions.
If you have any doubt as to whether abortion empowers women, look at the faces of expectant mothers entering abortion clinics. What you will see is fear, desperation, sadness and resignation. Women deserve better!
23)
"...
Science...the facts of abortion...pro lifers only care to save the baby..."
In her article/letter....... accuses pro-life advocates of employing "dubious medical claims". This creates an insurmountable problem for Ms.... because in espousing her pro-choice position, she conveniently ignores the most important medical and scientific fact of all, namely that life begins at conception.
Ms ....will find no medical textbooks or scientific reference works that says that life begins at any time, other than at conception. Moreover ,Ms..... will no doubt be aware that some of the world's most prominent scientists and physicians recently testified at a Senate committee that life begins at conception. At these same hearings, the pro-choice lobby, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would (or could) contradict or even question this accepted fact.
Ms..... then goes on to accuse pro-lifers of "having no plan for all those lives forcibly brought into being". The first thing that strikes you about this accusation is the writer appears resentful that lives are being saved, instead of aborted. This is surprising in view of the fact that pro-choice rhetoric insists that they want abortion to be "safe, legal and rare", despite the fact that they administer over 3,000 abortions each and every day!
Finally, Ms...... ignores the fact that there are over 3,000 crisis pregnancy centers inthe U.S. and these are staffed almost entirely by pro-life volunteers. These centers, unlike abortion clinics, not only offer expectant mothers a real "choice" other than abortion, but also provide post-pregnancy medical and other assistance free of charge. So where as the abortion industry has raked in hundreds of millions of dollars since abortion was legalized in 1973, pro-lifers offer their time and money to support women in problem pregnancy situations. A wonderful local example is .......... in .............., which not only provides abortion alternatives, but then educates young mothers to ensure a bright future for mother and child.
24)
"...
every child a wanted child..."
Ms.....claimed that Planned Parenthood was working to ensure, "that every child that is born is planned, wanted, loved and financially cared for". This idea was striking because advocates for abortion held out the same panacea of the elimination of "unwanted children" 35 years ago, prior to the legalization of abortion. In fact, it was Planned Parenthood who at that time coined the phrase, "every child, a wanted child". Despite the fact that in the intervening period, some 47 million "unwanted" babies have lost their lives and child abuse has skyrocketed, it appears that the pro-choice people are still using this argument to justify abortion.
We of course, all agree that every child should be wanted. This is an idealistic goal, but sadly we do not live in an idyllic world. Would not it also be wonderful if there were no unwanted wives, no aging unwanted parents, no unwanted Jews or blacks, or anyone else who is devalued or persecuted? It is truly a frightening concept that in order to have the right to life, you must be wanted. Do not forget that Hitler's Germany was ideal for wanted Aryans!
To put Ms...... quote into proper context, one must realize what takes place if a child is "not wanted" and admit the fact that he or she "must be aborted". To thus complete the sentence removes the mask from this misleading slogan and reveals it for the evil that it is!
25)
"...
abortion is not a priority...or less important than other social problems."
I have to disagree with your most recent opinion, headed, "When abortion is irrelevant". When the lives of around 1.4 million unborn babies are taken each and every year in this country, nothing on this subject becomes irrelevant or unimportant.
Abortion is by far the most important human rights issue of the day and therefore,all of the political candidates we choose are important. I understand your line of argument that in a couple of States (such as California and Maine) it might be less important than the rest, but it is completely misleading and dangerous to say, "...what a candidate thinks about abortion rights is not especially important."
Whether the standard is legal or biological, there is simply no rational way to deny that the unborn child is a separate and unique human being. If there is only one legitimate function of government, it is the protection of innocent human life. And it is certainly not the government's role to protect one individual's right to victimize another. So no matter which State we live in, the choice of candidate matters. If a politician is willing to stand by and allow the slaughter of innocent life, we should know that he/she is not fit for the position, even if he/she can do less than in his/her State than another candidate in a different State.
26)
"....
Religion should not affect politics....separation of Church & State..."
I am responding to the letter which argued that religion should not influence politics. With respect, such warnings about the need for "separation of church and state" and those of faith must not "impose their beliefs on our society" are simply intended to discourage serious debate.
Lawmaking inevitably involves some group imposing its beliefs on the rest of us. That is the nature of the democratic process. If we say we "ought" to do something, we are making a moral judgment. When our legislators turn that judgment into law, somebody's ought becomes a "must" for the whole of society.
Thus, democracy depends on people of conviction expressing their views with confidence. This give-and-take is an American tradition and religious believers only weaken our country intellectually (rather than serve it) if we downplay our principles out of some misguided sense of good manners.
For example, people who support permissive abortion laws have had no qualms about imposing their views on society. Often working against popular opinion, they have blocked any and every effort to restrict abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade in 1973. That is fair and is their right. But why should the rules of engagement be different for citizens who regard abortion as the fundamental human right's issue of the day?
The "choice" in abortion always involves the choice to end the life of an unborn human being. For any person who sees this fact clearly, neutrality, silence or private disapproval are not options. Indeed, if religious believers do not advance their convictions about morality in public debate, they are demonstrating not tolerance but cowardice.
The founders sought to prevent the establishment of an official state church. But the Constitution was never intended to prohibit people of faith playing an active role in public life. To do so separates government from morality and leads to politics without character or conscience, now a national epidemic.
27)
"...
abortion and infant mortality..."
Even if one does not consider abortion to be an instance of infant mortality, one has to concede that premature birth is the salient reason for this problem. In fact, a recent Study on premature birth concluded that it is responsible for at least 70 percent more infant deaths than previously thought.
However, a major cause of premature births is undeniably surgical abortion, which for obvious reasons, Planned Parenthood chooses to ignore. There are now 60 studies from 23 countries dating to the 1960's showing that surgical abortion increases both miscarriage and premature birth: "Second trimester miscarriage and premature birth frequently follow induced abortions". Review FrenchGYN-OB.
A study of 26,000 consecutive deliveries at UCLA was done to determine if previous abortions had increased the number of stillborn babies and neonatal (afterbirth) deaths. The findings were that the death rate "increased more than three fold." Another study carried out in Australia showed that women who had undergone an abortion had an 8.6% chance of having premature labor, compared to 4.4% for those women who had not had an abortion. Medical Journal of Australia.
Medical World News reported that in Czechoslovakia, premature births resulting from abortions are so frequent that a woman who has had a number of abortions and who becomes pregnant is examined and the patient stays in the hospital as long as necessary until the birth.
The facts are abundantly clear on how to reduce infant mortality. The question is do we have the resolve and determination to deal with the bigger issue of abortion, or do we continue to live in denial?
28)
".....
abortion and economy... social security...aging population..."
The US is now confronting the same problem that has faced several countries in Europe, namely a rapidly aging population and not enough workers to support them. According to United Nations figures, the percentage of the American population 65 or over will rise from 12.3% today to 20.6% by 2050. The proportion of Americans 80 or over will rise from 3.6% to 7.3% of the population. Our worker-to- retiree ratio is already at a dangerous 3-to-1.By 2050, it will be less than 2-to-1.
The fact that abortion is responsible for this problem and our almost bankrupt Social Security system is one that does not get much attention in the media.
However, campaigning in Iowa with less than two weeks before the first presidential battles begin, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was asked the question, "If abortion hadn't been responsible for killing 50 million Americans, wouldn't our system be solvent, as all those aborted children would now be working and contributing to Social Security?"
Clinton responded by making a comment on the large red hat worn by the woman who asked the question . She then avoided the question with typical rhetoric, saying she had worked to keep abortion "safe, legal, rare." In view of the fact that we have over 3,000 abortions every day inthe U.S., she has obviously failed miserably!
Clinton's response, however poor, was better than the one Democratic candidate Barack Obama gave when she asked the same question. Apparently, his response was,"That is an abortion question."
If he cannot handle stress like that, he clearly is unfit to be President.
29)
"...
Roe v. Wade..."
The term "September 11th" has become a household phrase, representing a great tragedy when innocent people were callously murdered to further a selfish political agenda.
Yet another date, January 22nd, which is not nearly as well known, marks perhaps the most tragic day in our country's history. January 22nd 2008 will be the 35th anniversary of the U.S Supreme Court's decisionof Roe v. Wade, which somehow found in our Constitution the phantom "right"to have the innocent child in the womb aborted.
Since that decision in 1973, around 49 million innocent babies have been aborted inthe U.S.----a number which far exceeds all the Americans killed in all the wars combined since our nation was founded.
Polls show that the majority of people do not realize the full implications of the Roe decision ----for example, that the child can be aborted for any reason (or indeed no reason) throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy. The ignorance relative to Roe is by design. It is intentionally fueled by disinformation in the media.
Fortunately, both science and technology has advanced since 1973 so it is becoming increasingly difficult for the abortion industry to conceal and disguise the truth. For instance, 3D and 4D ultrasounds now provide a window into the womb, which clearly shows the humanity of the child and renders absurd their previous claim that "it" was "only a blob of tissue".
Knowledge is power, and as more people gain knowledge about Roe v. Wade, the less power the multi-billion dollar abortion industry maintains, despite its every effort to mislead us and the young mothers whom they seek as clients.
30)
"...
abortion and breast cancer...health of mother..."
Advocates of abortion often claim that pro-lifers:
(1) Do not care about the health of the mother and
(2)concoct a link between abortion and breast cancer.
According to the abortion industry's own figures, "Personal choice" (or convenience) comprises 98 percent of the reasons given in 2006 for deciding on an "induced termination". In the remaining two percent of cases, reasons such as "abnormal fetus" are given. Therefore, the percentage of cases where health of the mother is a factor is miniscule. It may sound good to radical feminists, but it is pure rhetoric.
Prior to the legalization of abortion in 1973, about one woman in fourteen developed breast cancer in the U.S. Since then, the increase has been dramatic and today the figure is almost one woman in seven. Moreover, there have been over 30 studies showing a higher incidence of breast cancer with women who have had abortions. The most recent was a British study which used data from eight European countries and which was reported in The Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons in October. There was one country which had a surprisingly low incidence of breast cancer. That country happened to be Ireland, where abortion is illegal!
31)
"...
Roe v. Wade..2..."
Polls have consistently shown that about half of all Americans do not think that Roe v. Wade should be reversed. However, polls also show that the vast majority of Americans favor significantly more restrictions on abortion than Roe permits. The Roe decision, with its companion case Doe v. Bolton, legalized abortion through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason, or for no reason at all.
Most Americans want abortion to be legal under limited circumstances, such as in the small minority of cases of rape and incest. What Roe did, though, was take the abortion issue out of the hands of the elected branches of government and imposed a policy of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy by judicial fiat. In doing so, they prohibited even common ground, common sense legislation, a policy which very few Americans support.
32)
"...
we should not restrict choice..."
In this election season, we hear politicians saying that , "we should not restrict choice". What nonsense! The government interferes with people's private choices all the time. That is why we have a government.
There is nothing intrinsically noble about choice. There are many choices societies simply cannot allow individuals to make. Total freedom for each individual is anarchy.The decision of government to "interfere" is based on what is in the best interests of everyone in our society.
The government has forbidden many choices, both public and private. The choice to have sex with children and the choice to dump antifreeze in the city reservoir are both forbidden. I have never heard politicians protest these limits on choices. Restricting choices is exactly what laws are meant to do. Every law ever passed--from speed limits to bans on insider trading--were passed to deny someone the legal ability to make a particular choice.
Many choices that we may not legally make are not nearly as deadly and far-reaching as abortion. In view of the fact that abortion results in dead babies, injured women, and damaged families, talking about "choice" is both ridiculous and heartless.
33)
"...
the elections and voting..."
Would you like to save a child's life? Next week you will be given that chance. The candidates running for office have starkly different positions on the most fundamental issue: abortion.
Babies will live and die based on how you vote. The children are counting on you. Please do not let them down.
34)
"...
voting..."
Edmund Burke once said, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Unfortunately, evil in America has triumphed in recent years. Since Roe v. Wade, 4000 children have been routinely deprived of the fundamental right to life each and every day.
Meanwhile, millions of Americans stand idly by, too busy to vote or too disenfranchised to care. While both of these are real concerns, disinterest or apathy should not prevent us from answering the needs of the community, particularly the most defenseless in our society. Please register to vote now because the November election provides an opportunity to make a stand on behalf of the innocent unborn child.
35)
"...
Fundamental right...."
Some call the right-to-life movement "divisive." Our country was founded on the recognition of certain basic moral principles, the most important of which is that the right to life is unalienable, is bestowed by the Creator, and is to be protected by the government.
The very greatness of America depends on her adherence to this truth. How, then, can one consider "divisive" the very principle on which our unity as a nation stands?
Some speak of "a pluralistic society." What holds this "pluralistic society" together, keeping it from becoming a disconnected chaos? Clearly, there needs to be certain basic, foundational principles to which everyone in the society adheres if it is to survive. The right to life is the first among them.
36)
"...
Fundamental right and elections..."
As the election draws near, we are hearing more and more about health care, education, the war on terrorism, and other important topics. All of these are, to be sure, very important. However, the most important topic, is the one that few people (particularly politicians) want to talk about: abortion.
One might ask, "But how is abortion more important than quality education?" Easy. A child cannot receive a quality education once he is aborted. It is certainly a noble goal to ensure that every child receives a quality education, but when one-third of children die before they reach kindergarten, we have failed in providing them with a quality education.
The same is true for other issues. Certainly children should have access to proper health care, but why is health care important? Health care is important because we value human life and seek to protect it from harm. Abortion, conversely, says that the purpose of health care is to destroy life, not to nurture it.
In short, every humanitarian goal (and there are many of them) rests on the premise of the value and protection of human life.
37)
"...
the election..."
The election in November is nothing short of a life and death matter.
There are many important issues, such as the war and terrorism . However, when nearly 4,000 of our fellow citizens die each die without a trial or any means of defending themselves, abortion has to be the overriding issue.
Candidates of both parties have various solutions to the serious problems in our society, but only some will work toward ending the biggest problem. Crime must drop, health care must be more widely available, and education must improve, but all of these goals are worthless if we say that they are off limits to one-third of our society. If these goals are really important, then our first goal must be allowing all people to enjoy them.
38)
"...
Barack Obama needs to re-read the infamous Dred Scott decision..."
Sir,
It appears that Barack Obama needs to re-read the infamous Dred Scott decision by the United States Supreme Court back in 1857. That legal travesty ruled that people of African origin in the U.S. were "property", not people.
In 2001, three bills were proposed in Illinois to help babies who survived abortions. On all three occasions, Obama, as an Illinois State Senator, voted "present" (which effectively is the same as "no" or against) providing humane assistance to these babies.
I am sure that Obama knows the history of his African-American ancestors and the injustices they suffered as a result of being denied "personhood". This makes it all the more sad and perverse that he cannot even accept that a fully born baby be treated as a "person."
Sincerely,
39)
"...
founding fathers....Declaration of Independence....inalienable right..."
In the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson made it very clear that all human beings "are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". Chief and first among those he enumerated was the Right to Life.
Jefferson and our founding fathers knew that without the right to life, no other rights are possible. How can one have the right to vote or the right to free speech, for example, if one does not firstly have the right to exist?
The rights mentioned in the Declaration are no less valid than those articulated in our Constitution. In fact, they are foundational to all the rights and protections which the Constitution guarantees. This applies especially to the right to life, which is not only paramount but is also clearly protected under the 14th Amendment by due process of law.
We need to impress upon our children the importance of these two documents and how they already guarantee every American, born or unborn, week or strong, the blessings of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
40)
"...
private issue... government should not interfere.."
Many pro-choice people believe that abortion does not belong in the realm of government and is a "woman's private issue". This raises a fundamental question. Should we, as a nation, protect all human beings, or should we discriminate based on age, race and place of residence---in this case, the mother's womb.
To say that government should let people make all their own choices is neither practical nor desirable. We should not, for example, let people commit rape, steal or drive drunk.
Given the biological fact that the unborn are living human beings, the question is not whether the government has the right to prohibit abortion, but whether it has the right not to. The pertinent question is not whether a woman has a right to privacy, but whether her right to privacy supersedes her innocent child's right to life.
41)
"...
contraception and abortion..."
Prior to Roe v Wade in 1973, pro-choice advocates argued that abortion would never be used as a form of contraception. Today, with more than 1.2 million babies being aborted each year in the U.S., this "promise" can be seen as entirely hollow.
The fact is that today, abortion is a vital form of birth control. Let's translate this into plain English: some people have developed sexual habits and made choices based on the assurance that they can take the life of babies they make, but do not want.
In short, abortion should be kept legal to facilitate hedonistic and selfish lifestyles, regardless of the consequences to society in terms of epidemic rates of STD's and abortions.
