Catholic View on Abortion

Loyalty to God should take precedence over loyalty to a political party. This is particularly true regarding the issue of abortion.

You do not create life, and therefore you cannot take life. You cannot take your own life because it is sacred. You also cannot take the life of someone else, because that life is sacred too. You also cannot take the life of an unborn child, as that life is also sacred.

The womb, in other words, is a temporary holding chamber for a new life of a baby human being. Under good Faith, you cannot have a right to choose to abort that of what you did not create.

You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and so too does that baby. If you choose to abort that child, you are violating that person's rights in favor of a right you do not own. In other words, an unborn child is not an object that you can choose to discard like it's unwanted garbage.

You did not create that baby inside your womb, therefore you do not have the right to take that life away. It's not a matter of political preference that you get to choose what to do with that baby. That baby inside your womb is a life created by God, and it should be respected as such, no matter who the father is.

That unborn baby is not a part of your body: it is a temple of the Lord.

So, when choosing who to vote for during this election cycle, it's important that you choose the candidate who is strongest on the issues. You should not, in good Faith, vote for any candidate who supports the killing of unborn babies.

Planned Parenthood: Heart of Aborted Fetus Was Still Beating

I think the biggest issue of our generation is that we are killing unborn babies.  Future generations will look back on our generation and say, "How could they have done that?"  Think of it this way: abortion is far worse than slavery because at least slaves had a chance at life.  Aborted babies had no chance whatsoever. 

The biggest killer of babies by far is a government funded organization called Planned Parenthood.  The best evidence suggests that this organization has killed over 7 million unborn babies since the 1972 Rowe-v-Wade decision.  However, considering the shady history of the organization, some experts suggests this estimate is way short of the actual number of lives ended by the organization.

What's amazing is that this is going on inside the United States.  We look back on our nation prior to the Civil War, and how African Americans were treated like property, and we think how horrible that was.  We think, "How could they have done that?"  But many did.  They treated blacks no different than they treated the floor they walked on or the horse in the stall.  

We have another video released by CenterForMedicalProgress.org that features Holly O'Donnell, an interview with a former technician for StemExpress, an organization that we now know partnered with Planned Parenthood for the harvesting of fetal body parts for science for profit.  She described how she was ordered to cut the face of a fetus whose heart was still beating in order so that the brain could be harvested. 

Because of the other videos that have been released, StemExpress has since divorced itself from Planned Parenthood.  So the first videos were pretty damning.  It's not an allegation that Planned Parenthood was selling body parts illegally, it's now considered as a fact.  You can watch the most recent video here. 

She says: "And she just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I'm sitting here and I'm looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don't know what to think."

Despite these videos, despite the evidence that this is a pathetic oranization up to no good, a bill that made its way to the Senate to defund the organization was shot down on an almost straight party line vote, with only one democrat voting in favor of defunding the organization.  So the defenders of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness (or in this case simply life) are not in the democratic party.

As was the case in the 1860s, republicans are the defenders of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Republicans are the defenders of life.  This is not a political statement, it is a fact. Republicans worked hard to win African Americans their natural right to live free, and they are now fighting hard to win unborn babies the right to live.

Further reading:

• Washington Examiner: Planned Parenthood Whistleblower: Heart of Aborted Fetus Was Still Beating
• Breitbart: Planned Parenthood Clinic Cut Through Dead Baby’s face to Get His Intact Brain
• Articulating Ideas: Planned Parenthood: The Undeniable Truth
• Articulating Ideas: The Evils of Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood: The Undeniable Truth

Margaret Sanger (1879-1966)

I bet most people are unaware of the fact that Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger with the goal of ending poverty by controlling the black population. So it is no coincidence that most Planned Parenthood offices are conveniently located in minority communities.

This was made light of on the campaign trail recently, when republican candidate Dr. Ben Carson said:

Maybe I am not objective when it comes to Planned Parenthood, but, you know, I know who Margaret Sanger is, and I know that she believed in eugenics, and one of the reasons you find most of their clinics in black neighborhoods is so that you can find a way to control that population. I think people should go back and read about Margaret Sanger who founded this place — a woman Hillary Clinton by the way says that she admires. Look and see what many people in Nazi Germany said about her.

Margaret Sanger believed liberated women did not want large families 

and motherhood was a socially imposed constraint on their liberty. 

She believed it was a false consciousness to want a large family.

She believed that if women thought of sex as a pleasurable experience,

rather than a procreative act, they would embrace birth control 

as a necessary tool for their own personal gratification. 

She brilliantly used the word 'liberation' to convince women

that they weren't going along with a progressive collective scheme,

but were in fact "speaking truth to power."  

Sanger was the first leading champion for birth control.

Carson is right.  Johah Goldberg, in his book "Liberal Fascism," said that Sanger wanted to prevent the reproduction of unfit people, and regulate reproduction of everyone else.  She once wrote in a 1922 book, "The Pivot of Civilization": "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the belief issue of birth control."

You have to understand that the goal of progressives was to create a perfect world.  In the introduction of her book, Orson Wells wrote: "We want fewer and better children... and we cannot make the social life and the world peace we are determined to make, with ill-bread, ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens that you inflict on us."

Goldberg said that in 1939 she started what she referred to as the "Negro Project," which aimed to get blacks to accept birth control.  Through the Birth Control Federation, she even succeeded in convincing black leaders to help pare down the supposedly large black population.

The ultimate goal of progressives such as Sanger, once again, was to create an ideal world, and to establish a "heirarchy of desirable persons," according to Ian Tuttle of National Review. Sanger's Birth Control Federation report reads: “The mass of significant Negroes still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes . . . is [in] that portion of the population least intelligent and fit.”

Now, if this is not racist, I don't know what is.  She must have recognized this, as she went on to say, according to Goldberg: "We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."

Carson encouraged people to read up on Sanger, Just check out her 1922 book, where she also said:

The lack of balance between the birth-rate of the “unfit” and the “fit” [is] admittedly the greatest present menace to the civilization. . . . The example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit, and therefore less fertile, parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem to-day is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.

Yes, it is true: she was a leader in the fight to eliminate people she deemed to be inferior and a burden on society, and this included both the mentally challenged and the Negro populations.

Interestingly enough, Sanger's Planned Parenthood was about doling out birth control, not abortions.  In fact, she abhorred abortion, calling it "barbaric," an "outrageous slaughter," and "the killing of babies."

What Hitler did during WWII put an end to any eugenics programs that existed on the planet, as the idea was revealed for what it really is.  But Sanger's mission to "liberate" women through birth control lived on through the feminism movement.  Today, few people know about the woman and the "movement" that gave birth to the organization.

Ironically, today's Planned Parenthood is even more eugenic than Sanger's Planned Parenthood, as one of the services offered by the organization is abortions.  Planned Parenthood is now the leading organization when it comes to aborting unwanted un-born children, having killed over 7 million of them since the 1972 Roe -vs- Wade decision.

Abortion rights, or pro choice, advocates say defend this number by saying that abortions are only 3% of what the organization does.  Yet an aborted baby is a dead baby who never even had a chance to succeed or fail. That, my friends, is the undeniable truth.

The undeniable truth is, as noted by Goldberg: "Abortion ends more black lives than heart attacks, cancer, accidents, AIDS, and violent crime combined. African-Americans constitute little more than 12 percent of the population but have more than a third (37 percent) of abortions."

Tuttle said that "the abortion industry, intentionally or not, has carried on Sanger’s troubling legacy. Why is it that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, black women are five times likelier than white women to have an abortion?"

Tuttle said that the pro-life organization "Life Dynamics" recorded the ZIP Codes of every Planned Parenthood facility.  The organization reported: "We identified 116 ZIP codes with more than one population control facility. Of those, 84 were disproportionately black and/or Hispanic. What this means is that, when the American family planning industry places multiple facilities in a ZIP code, that ZIP code is more than two-and-a-half times as likely to be disproportionately minority as not."

Of course, Tuttle says critics of the study say Planned Parenthood is just building centers where they are needed, and this so happens to be in African-American neighborhoods.  However, Planned Parentehood also claims that birth control would prevent unintended pregnancies in these neighborhoods, and that has not happened.  In fact, the opposite has happened.

Tuttle said, "In 2011, the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute published the findings of a study comparing rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion in 1994 and 2006. Among women with incomes below the federal poverty line, the unintended pregnancy rate rose by 50 percent. They also experienced an increase in abortions."

So the organization is promoting riskier sexual behavior through its birth control services, and then offering abortion services needed to end unwanted pregnancies.  Of when you add in here that that the organization is also illegally selling fetal body parts, the organization seems more and more shay.

If the organization were truly about preventing unwanted pregnancies among impoverished neighborhoods, facilities would be equally dispersed in all impoverished neighborhoods.  Because they tend to only be in impoverished African-American neighborhoods, we can see that Margaret Sanger's vision is living on, although "in a new form." said Tuttle.

Further reading:

• Jonah Goldberg: Liberal Fascism, pages 270-277
• National Review: What Ben Carson Knows About Planned Parenthood
• Young Conservatives: Dr. Ben Carson: Planned parenthood was started in order to abort black babies
• Articulating Ideas: The Evils of Planned Parenthood
• Confused Nun Wrong About Abortion
• Young Conservatives: Hilary Clinton Gushed About Love For Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger in Comments from 2009

The Evils of Planned Parenthood

So now we know why Planned Parenthood refuses to talk moms out of aborting their babies: the organization is profiting by selling fetal arms, legs, and heads.

They are babies. They are little bodies and body parts of God's little creatures who will never even have a chance to live.  They have had that chance aborted.

Planned Parenthood makes, say, $500 for the abortion, and then $75 for arms, $75 for legs, $75 for heads, and $75 for bodies.  Put that together and you get a net profit of $800 per abortion.

That's enough money to keep the organization running regardless of how much taxpayer funds are going to pay for all this.

So, now let's address funding for planned parenthood.  According to cnsnews.com, "Planned Parenthood Got $540.6 Million in Government Grants in FY 2013."  According to factcheck.org, this revenue was only 45% of the organizations profits.  Likewise, only 3% of the total services offered in 2009 were abortions.

Of that 3%, no federal funds were was used to fund abortions, as the Hyde Amendment prevents the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortion unless the pregnancy arises from incest, rape, or to save the life of the mother.

Of course recent events now have us wondering if any of these statistics are even accurate.

We learn the organization is now making revenue selling body parts at stemexpress.com. We know this because of some undercover videos that have come out where members of the organization have openly discussed, while drinking coffee or eating donuts or whatever, the art of carefully aborting the bodies without destroying priceless body parts.

On one of the videos, Holly O'Donnell, ex procurement tech for StemExpress, a Placervill, California, company, said: "For whatever we could procure, they would get a certain percentage. The main nurse was always trying to make sure we got our specimens. No one else really cared, but the main nurse did because she knew that Planned Parenthood was getting compensated. The harder and the more valuable the tissue, the more money you get. So if you can somehow procure a brain or a heart, you're gonna get more money."

One of the videos from the Center for Medical Progress is rather graphic, showing technicians using tweezers to pick through aborted tissue looking for body parts. When the person in the video appears to pluck out a pair of intact kidneys, a person off camera laughs and says, "Five Stars!"

McConnell describes Planned Parenthood's relationship with StemExpress.  She said, "StemExpress is a company that hires procurement techs to draw blood and dissect dead fetuses and sell the parts to researchers. They've partnered with Planned Parenthood and they get part of the money because we pay them to use their facilities. And they get paid from it. They do get some kind of benefit...If you can somehow procure a brain or a heart you're going to get more money than just Chorionic villi or umbilical cord."

She then went into further detail. She said: "I've never had anxiety before this at all. So I'm looking, and I don't know what's going on. I had no idea this is what's gonna happen happening, especially my first day. Literally she has tweezers and she's like, "Okay, well, this is the head, this is the arm, this is a leg." She hands them over, "Oh, here you go. Can you show me some of the parts I just showed you?" The moment I took the tweezers I put 'em in the dish, I remember grabbing a leg. And I said, "This is a leg," and the moment I picked it up I could just feel, like, death and pain. I never felt like that before, like shoot up through my body, and I started to... I blacked out."

A fifth video records a conversation with director of research at the Gulf Coast office, Melissa Farrell, who says, "If we alter a process and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget that any dissections are this and splitting the specimens into different shipments as this. I mean, that's... It's all just a matter of line items."

Here she is talking about human body parts as though they are just things that can be sold.  This is exactly what slave owners thought of slaves prior to the Civil War.  This is exactly what Hitler thought of Jews. Today it's unborn and defenseless little babies that are being treated as things that can be owned, bought and sold. Farrell says this nonchalantly while having lunch at a restaurant.

Of course selling fetal tissue for a profit is illegal, and Planned Parenthood denies any of this is happening. Despite this, the Senate voted to continue forcing us to support this organization with our tax dollars whether we want to or not.

What's really amazing is the people who support Planned Parenthood are mainly liberals, the same people who run around saying that profit is bad, capitalism is bad, and black lives matter.  These are the same people who don't support capital punishment.  Then they support organizations like Planned Parenthood that perform abortions, and lie about what they do to the bodies.

So how do we know that they don't lie about how taxpayer money is used? So how can we believe our taxpayer dollars aren't being used to fund abortions? How can we be sure that the 55 million abortions said to have been performed since the 1973 Supreme Court is accurate?  How do we believe Planned Parenthood hasn't performed abortions that they don't report? How can we trust them? How can we continue to fund them with our money?

This is Planned Parent Hood.  It's a tax payer funded organization that participates in killing unborn babies, sucking any chance of life they had away from them.  It's an organization that every one of us is paying for even whether we want to or not, or whether we think what they do is abhorrent or not.

Further reading:

• Washington Post: Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood stalls in Senate
• Factcheck.com: Planned Parenthood
• CNSNews: Planned Parenthood got $540.6 million in government grants in FY 2013
• Rush Limbaugh: Future Generations Will Look Back and Wonder How This Country Lost Its Soul
  
• StemExpress.com
• Rush Limbaugh: We cry over the death of Cecil the Lion but shrug off Planned Parenthood
• Rush Limbaugth: 5th Video, and it gets worse

Confused Nun wrong about abortion

Sister Joan Chittister

There has been a lot of chatter on the Internet about a quote from Sister Joan Chittister, a Catholic nun and author of over 50 books, regarding her views on the Catholic Pro-Life stance on abortion.  She said:

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

I believe that a quick refresher on history, and her own religion, would easily show Sister Joan that she is incorrect in her assertions here.  For one thing, 99.9% of all people lived in poverty for 99.9% of history, meaning that 99.9% of children born were born into poverty.

This is a fact that cannot be disputed.  Most people thoughout history lived under totalitarian dictatorship-type governments, and most commoners had no chance to acquire any wealth or material property.  People hunted, and fished, or worked on farms every day just to put food on the table.

The role of the Church suggests that it is the responsibility of parents to provide for their children, even if that means making personal sacrifices.  Of course that's aside from the fact that procreating, giving birth to children, and keeping them alive, is essential for humanity to continue.  Had a majority of impoverished parents aborted their children throughout the course of history, most of us would not exist today.

The Bible also teaches about personal responsibility, accountability, charity and justice. These are all things that must come from individual choice, not by government mandate.  Surely it is noble to give to the poor, but it is not noble for a government to force such by government edict and taxes.  Social justice, redistribution of wealth, which is what this nun is hinting at, does not teach responsibility and accountability, and it surely is not charity nor justice.

My dad once said that once two people are married, they should have children regardless of their financial status or material desires.  My dad is right. Had our parents, grandparents and great grandparents decided to wait for the ideal time, or wait for government handouts, none of us would exist today.

So while pro-choice pundits may think that this nun, who may be one of the smartest and nicest people in the world, "Brilliantly Exposed “Pro-Life” Hypocrites With This Hard-Hitting Quote, they are wrong. Nothing is more valuable than life.  And once aborted, there is no chance at all,

Carly Fiorina floors Katie Couric on abortion

Carly Fiorina is at the present time the only female republican presidential candidate. She is former CEO of Hewlet Packard, former republican candidate for the senate, and current chairperson of Good360.  I have now listened to a couple interviews she gave and she appears to me to be a very intelligent conservative candidate. I'm very impressed.  I especially loved the way she schooled Katie Couric on abortion.

COURIC: Let me ask you about the GOP and the trouble it's had among female voters. As you well know, in the last midterms, women were ten points less likely than men to support Republicans. It's the largest gender gap in decades. How do you shore that up for the GOP?

FIORINA: A lot of times, women will come up to me and say, "You know, I'm very uncomfortable with the extreme position the Republican Party takes on abortion." And so, I'll say, "Do you know what the Democratic position is?" Most people don't, by the way. The Democratic policy is any abortion, any time, for any reason at any point in a woman's pregnancy, right up until the last minute, to be paid by taxpayers. Barbara Boxer described this policy as, "It's not a life until it leave the hospital." How do you feel about that? Most women are horrified. If I ask women: How to you feel about the fact that a 13 year old girl needs her mother's permission to go to a tanning Solon, but not to get an abortion.  Most women are horrified by that. How do you feel about the fact that a tattoo parlor is more rigorously regulated and inspected than an abortion clinic. Women are horrified by that. The truth is, most Americans, most women, most young people, most most Americans, have now come to a point of view that an abortion for any reason at all after five months is a problem.  So lets take that common ground. I think our tone matters.  We can't be judgemental.  We can't be angry. But I also think we have to make sure people understand the extremity on the other side. 

COURIC: But you say after five months and you oppose abortion, except in the cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger. 

FIORINA I'm pro-life.

COURIC: So – But what you're saying is that most Americans support it –

FIORINA: Right. So, let's find common ground.

COURIC: So, what is the common ground?

FIORINA: Well, the common ground, clearly, now, if you look at the polls, the common ground is that people believe abortion after five months for any reason at all is wrong. So, good. Let's take the common ground:

COURIC: But what about – What about – So – So – Where is the common ground?

FIORINA: Let's take that common ground.

COURIC: So, you oppose it, except in the case of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger. So, what about those who feel it should be legal for the first five months?

FIORINA: You see, Katie, I think you're just jumping over what I just said. So, what the political class on both sides has done for way too long is argue at the extremes. And in the meantime, there is real common ground. So, we can argue at the extremes here or we can say, you know what –

COURIC: No, I'm curious what is the common ground?

FIORINA: The common ground is if you look at every poll, the majority of Americans, the majority of women and the majority of young people now believe that abortion after five months for any reason is now wrong. So, let's pass – there was a bill in front of the House. Let's pass the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. That's common ground.

COURIC: So, what is your position on abortion though? Your – as a candidate?

FIORINA: I'm a pro-life candidate because I believe that science is proving us right every day..We've been doing successful surgery in utero on fetuses as young as four months for quite a long time. The DNA in a zygote is precisely as the DNA the day you die. But I understand and respect, Katie, not everyone agrees with me. What I think, is even while we don't agree on everything, let's come together and solve a problem where we have common ground. The truth is there are lots of children being aborted after five months.  That Americans now agree that maybe we should step in and save them.  So let us do that.

COURIC:  So do you believe Roe v Wade should be overturned?

FIORINA:  You know, Roe v Wade right now is the law of the land.  Can we take on common ground right now.  Let's just get that done.

COURIC:  So, is that answer to that question no?

FIORINA:  Let's get common ground done first.  

Transcripts compliments of CNN

View entire interview at youtube.com

5 myths about pro-life poeple

Kristen Walker wrote a nice article at lifenews.com called "Five Myths About Pro-life People and How to Refute Them."

1.  We're Brainwashed:  She said that most people are inundated by the pro-choice argument.  It's usually portrayed as a "sad but necessary thing." An example she gives is the movie Dirty Dancing, where young, impressionable people are exposed to a young woman who gets an abortion with a "dirty knife," and then a real doctor is called and the girl is fine.  Such pictures of abortion show it in a positive light, and have succeeded at "brainwashing" the younger generations to accept abortion as normal.  Most people are not exposed to the pro-life argument in this manner, and so people usually come to be pro-lifers on their own.

2.  We're violent:  This is an easy one to refute.  They say we are violent because pro-lifers have killed eight abortion doctors since 1973.  However bad this is, their side has killed over fifty million babies since 1973.  So it's clearly safer to be an abortionist than an unborn baby.

3.  We're religious, conservative, and old:  The truth is, there are many democrats who are pro-lifers, although they seem to be on the decline in Washington.  There are also people who do not believe in God who simply feel it is wrong to kill an innocent child.  And, to top it off, there are many young people who have not been "brainwashed" by the liberal elite establishment.  The truth is, more and more young people are supporting the pro-life movement. There is also a rise in the number of Catholics who vote for pro-choice candidates, so this myth seems to have no merit to it. Not all pro-lifers are religious, conservative and old: Check out Secular Pro-Life, Pagans for Life, or Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League.

4.  We're hypocrites if we oppose abortion but don't oppose the death penalty:  Well, I do oppose the death penalty, so there is not argument here.  I explain why I oppose the death penalty here.  Plus, even if I supported the death penalty you can't compare the killing of a guilty person who chose to commit a crime to that of an innocent unborn child who never had a chance to make a choice.

5.  We have an ulterior motive:  Common ulterior motives that we are often accused of are: taking choice away from women, stopping unmarried people from having sex, and making pernicious girls feel bad about themselves. The truth is, we are pro-lifers because we care about women and their children.  We want to prevent women from committing "legal murder," and we want to save the lives of their innocent children.

Hippocratic Oath required pledge not to perform abortions

Image of Hippocrates (460-377 B.C.)
Prior to the ancient Greek philosophy,
it was common for physicians,
to use their knowledge to kill for money.
The Hippocratic oath was an effort,
to change the image of the profession.

Since the days of ancient Greece physicians were required to take an oath, therefore promising to do no harm, including a pledge not to perform abortions.  Since about 400 years before the birth of Christ this has been known as the Hippocratic Oath.

However, beginning in the 1960s, rather than face the issue, most medical-schools dropped the requirement that graduates site the pledge.

Just think, an oath that lasted through all the trials and trivializations of 2,500 years of history was ended over the abortion issue.

Today the pledge is voluntary, and the part about not doing abortion is not a part of it.  Sad.

Reference:

1. Paul, Ron, "Liberty Defined," 2011, 

Abortion: A sad state of affairs

If it wasn't bad enough the the Supreme Court found some inexplicable way to make abortions legal, now, under Obamacare, even people who do not support the horrendous act of violence are being forced to fund it.  This includes the Catholic Church, who has openly declared a war on abortion.

This is a sad state of affairs. If anything, if the Federal government were to rule on the abortion issue, it should rule on the side of life.  Now, not only is has it ruled on the side of death, it is now forcing the Catholic Church, of all things, to fund it.  This is not liberty. This is not freedom.  This is not justice. This is not moral. This is not legal.

The problem with the "Pro Choice" argument

A lot of people argue that a woman should have the right to choose whether to keep a pregnancy or to terminate it.  However, there are problems with this argument that need to be addressed.

Many argue that a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy.  However, few people on this side of the argument respect the natural rights of the infant.  An infant, thus, has a right not to be murdered.  It has a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, among other natural rights.

Liberty, defined, means to exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others. By this definition abortion is not only murder, it's an obvious violation of the liberties of the infant.

It also diminishes the value of life.  It causes people to not even bat an eye, to not think twice, about killing a baby, thus ending a life, at the convenience of the mother. If anything, the Federal government should err on the side of protecting life, not taking it.

Diminishing the value of life has created certain social and moral issues, beginning with the idea of "when do you decide an infant is a viable human being."  How do you decide whether it begins at conception, three months, six months, or term?

Still, most pro choice proponents squirm at the thought of killing a baby in the 9th trimester.  Yet how is this any worse than killing a baby in the first trimester? If a mother is squirmish at the thought of ending a pregnancy near term, how is this any worse than ending it near conception?

If you decide it begins at term, then you are going to be aborting babies that could be viable human beings.  You could, then, take a kicking and screaming baby out of a mother, only to end it's life. Or is it only murder after a child is born?

Another problem with the pro choice argument is that many of the people who argue for the right of the mother to choose to have an abortion, they do not fight for her right to choose where to send their child to school, nor her right to choose what to put inside her body (narcotics, cigarette smoke, sugar, high fat foods, marijuana), nor can she choose to opt out of purchasing health insurance.  So in this regard, the pro-choice argument is hypocritical.

Technically speaking, there should be no argument of whether or not a woman can kill her baby.  Technically speaking, the argument should be the morality of killing an unborn infant.  Scientifically, the issue is solved.  Science has proven that a baby has a beating heart at an early age, and, if that heart is not stopped, a fetus will develop into a viable human being.

So, in my mind, a fetus is a viable human being at conception.  How this could be debated, how it could be argued as a matter of choice, is inhumane.

It is a sad thought that a physician can end a life and make a fee in the process.  how is it that a free and just society does not find a problem with this? Yet despite the moral and religious issue here, about three million human beings are aborted every year. This sends a signal to young people that we place a lower value on the small and the weak.

So most young people have an abortion for economic reasons. They kill their baby because it would cost too much to have one, and inconvenience their social lifestyles.  Most people choose abortions because they are not made aware that there baby has a beating heart.  Most women who have abortions grow to regret it, and this affects them for the rest of their lives.

For many young women, abortions is a simpler choice compared with taking responsibility for their actions, and making inconvenient changes in their lives that are necessary for the bearing and raising of children.

For something that impacts a young woman in such a negative way, and sends such a poor messages to young people, how could some people think this is okay?

Most people may not know this, but Spartan men were encouraged to rape.  If they were caught, they were made fun of.  Women were also encouraged to have abortions, and, although unsanitary and risky, many women had them.

The ancient Jews, the Hebrews, were aware of the moral issues caused by rape and abortion, and they sought to end it.  This is why their literature frowned on the practice, and forbade it.  So, if people thousands of years ago saw the problem with abortion, how could we not?

To solve the issue we need to defend and protect the liberties of the unborn children.  We need to educate young people as to when a heart starts beating, and we need to make abortions less convenient and less available.  We also need to encourage abstinence before marriage.

Obviously, regardless of the efforts made by society, there will still be abortions performed, many of them illegally.  Yet this should not stop us, as a moral and just society, from making an effort to end

How to solve the abortion issue

Regardless of what side of the issue the Federal government comes out on, half the country is going to be outraged.  The simplest solution here is to not take sides at all, and if the U.S. Constitution were followed, this is how the argument would be resolved.

Of course, this solution will neither be popular among conservatives nor liberals. Conservatives want to use the Federal government to make abortions illegal. Liberals want to use the Federal government to make abortions legal.  Roe versus Wade, in effect, was a success by liberals.

However, both the conservative and liberal positions are abuses of Federal power, and both unconstitutional.  So, in this regard, so too was the 1972 Roe -v- Wade ruling in favor of abortion.

Article II Section 8 of the Constitution gives 30 powers to the U.S. Congress, and these are in essence named the enumerable powers of government.  Some of the things delegated to Congress include standard weights and measures, coining money, post offices and post roads, the protection of intellectual property, and a national defense. Beyond these and a few other very specific items, there was not much for which the federal government was responsible.

The Constitution says nothing about murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence.  The Constitution only gives the government a right to make laws regarding counterfeiting, piracy, treason, and slavery.  It does not have a right to rule on abortion either.  Therefore, on this ground alone, the Rowe-v-Wade ruling is illegal.

If, for example, the government were to make infanticide legal, it would not be maintaining a republican form of government, which is required by the Constitution. If the Federal government were to rule on abortion, ideally it should err on the side of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, natural rights of the infant that are protected by the Constitution.

Regardless, anything not delegated to Congress is delegated, by the 10th amendment, to the states, or to the people, to decide. Therefore, the legal means of resolving the abortion issue is to let the states decide the manner.

In essence, if the law is followed, it would go back to the way it was prior to 1972, where some states had laws banning abortion, and some states had laws supporting abortion.  Those who continued to disagree with state law deserved the right to educate and fight for change.

Removing the power of the Federal government can be done with a massive educational movement, a majority in favor of such a movement in Congress, and a signature of the President. This, it would seem, would be much simpler than waiting for the Supreme Court to to repeal Rowe-v-Wade.

Although, the simplest means would be to regard the laws already on the books.

One should resist voting on social views

My wife and I both agree that we do not vote for people just because of social issues.  What I do vote for are people who are constitutionalists, or anyone who has a track record of supporting the Constitution.

I believe if a leader is someone who defends and protects the Constitution, it shouldn't matter what their personal views on social issues are, because their personal opinions shouldn't matter so long as they obey the law.  

This is the argument I made when Rudy Guliani was running for President even though he voiced pro-choice opinions when running for New York Mayor.  I said that if he obeys the Constitution, or the law, we shouldn't have to worry about his personal opinion about abortion.  

I am a strong pro life person, as I believe it is wrong to kill babies.  On the other hand, I am a strong supporter of the 10th amendment, which states that anything not covered in the Constitution is left for the states, the people, to decide.  

For this reason, if the Judges decide Roe-v-Wade had followed the law and not their opinions, abortion would have been left to the states to decide. Barring a new amendment, that is the law of the land. 

If you want to change the law, be it that you are a conservative like Rick Santorum who wants to force people to accept the pro life argument, or a liberal like Nancy Pelosi who wants to force people to accept pro choice argument, you will have to convince the people that your argument is the best.  

So, you see, I vote for people who have a strong track record of defending the Constitution as it was written by the founding fathers, and not based on someones social issues. I vote based on fiscal issues, not social issues.  

Now, I'm not implying that I don't hold strong opinions on social issues, because I do.  I'm just saying that, so long as the law is followed, the people will be happy. All Roe-V-Wade did was tick off half the nation and create a social divide and partisan divide.