America, Where Are You? Part 3

The Attack on Innocent Human Life

The entire basis for Roe v. Wade was built upon false assumptions.
—an affidavit submitted by Norma McCorvey (the Roe in Roe v. Wade) to the District Court of New Jersey in 2000—


Key point: Court cases that prevail in court but that were built on lies result in more lies. Chief among the lies Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton have produced is this one: The unborn child is not a part of the human family.


For summaries of all the articles in this series, go here.

On January 22, 1973—ten and a half years after issuing Engel v. Vitale and in the midst of the immediate aftermath of the sexual revolution of the 1960s—the Supreme Court handed down its rulings in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. As a result, abortion became legal in all 50 states. Most people do not know that that both these cases were built on lies. Significantly, the plaintiffs, who lived to regret their involvement in these legal efforts, have said this. Read about Sandra Cano—“Mary Doe” of Doe v. Bolton here and here, and about Norma McCorvey—“Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade here and here.

An analysis of the two abortion cases is available here.

On June 23, 2005, Cano testified before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here is a clip of her testimony, taken from this video.

In the video below, Norma McCorvey—Jane Roe—speaks out.

An effort is underway to present the truth about Roe v. Wade in and through a feature film. You can learn more about that project here.

There’s so much more here that needs to be highlighted, but we’ll limit our remaining space to the case against abortion, or, put another way, the case for life.

The Case for Life

Abortion isn’t about rights, but about this central question: Is the fetus a human being? In other words, What is the unborn? 


Abortion is about this central question: What is the unborn?


Pro-life advocates note that there are just four characteristics that distinguish an unborn baby, or a fetus, from other human beings: size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency (SLED).

  1. Size: Unborn babies are the smallest among us, but does their size determine their worth? It shouldn’t! We don’t deem those who are physically smaller or shorter as less worthy of life than those of us who are larger or taller. Neither should we say an unborn child is less worthy of life because he or she is smaller.
  2. Level of development: One’s level of development shouldn’t make him or her less worthy of life, either. A newborn isn’t a child; a child isn’t a teenager; and a teenager isn’t an adult. All have a right to life. An unborn baby ought to have a right to life as well; we never use level of development as a reason to kill a person who’s already been born.
  3. Environment: Moreover, one’s environment does not make him or her less of a human being. Sometimes you’re outside, sometimes you’re inside—but you’re just as much of a person in both locations. It’s the same with an unborn baby before he or she exits the womb.
  4. Degree of dependency: Finally, we see a difference in degree of dependency. Yes, a fetus depends heavily on its mother for life, but a newborn baby also is heavily dependent on responsible adults to meet his or her needs. This is true for children as well. It’s true even for some adults, depending on their circumstances and physical health. Are those who are more dependent less deserving of life? Of course not!

Spotlighting these qualities helps to demonstrate just how arbitrary society’s values have become—and how abortion is, essentially, discriminatory in the worst short of way. In other words, abortion denies the reality that a human life inside the womb is indeed a human life. Thus, as Dennis Prager asserts in this excellent video, abortion is immoral. Moreover, while it’s true that “[g]ood societies can survive people doing immoral things…a…society cannot survive if it calls immoral things moral.”

Once the government cut off the next generation from acknowledging God in a public setting, as it did in Engel v. Vitale, it wasn’t all that long before it legalized, authorized, and legitimized the “right” of some members of the human race to eliminate—actually, to kill—others. The victims number in the multiplied millions, and they have been the most innocent and defenseless among us! Since 1973, the number of abortions in the United States has reached nearly sixty million!


Once the government cut off the next generation from acknowledging God in a public setting, as it did in Engel v. Vitale, it wasn’t all that long before it legalized, authorized, and legitimized the “right” of some members of the human race to eliminate—actually, to kill—others in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.


Love Thy Neighbor

None of these realities eliminates the critical need to demonstrate love through practical help for women facing unwanted pregnancies. Nor does it negate the need to show love and compassion, and to offer help, to women who’ve had abortions already. Men also have been deeply hurt by abortion, and they often need understanding and help as well.

Amazingly, the abortion decisions represent one more step in the America’s decline, a decline that has continued. Yes, things could get even worse—and they did.

Next time, we’ll explore a third crucial Supreme Court decision and its implications.

 

Copyright © 2018 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture has been taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

About “Morality” (see top image; photo credit here)

At the National Monument to the Forefathers in Plymouth, Massachusetts, Faith stands atop the Monument, with Liberty and Morality seated at the base in front of her, and Law and Education seated at the base behind her. Morality is an inseparable part of the formula for freedom from tyranny, as is each of the other four virtues portrayed—faith, law, education, and liberty. The National Monument to the Forefathers was dedicated on August 1, 1889.

 

Look Who’s Waging the Real War on Women!

When pro-life advocates claim that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being, they are not saying they dislike abortion. They are saying it’s objectively wrong, regardless of how one feels about it.

If moral truths do not exist as a foundation for law, then law itself becomes merely a system of raw political power accountable to no one.

klusendorf-photo

Scott Klusendorf, President of the Life Training Institute and author of The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture

In this election, the issue of abortion is of paramount importance to everyone concerned about preserving innocent life. Watch this exchange in the third presidential debate, which took place this past Wednesday, October 19.

Hillary Clinton Is Wrong

Against this backdrop, we need to make several important points. First, we should note that doctors and research testify that partial-birth abortion never is medically necessary. Christy Lee Parker, a nurse with years of experience in the delivery room, affirms that

late-term abortions are sometimes referred to as post-viability abortions. That’s important because viability means the fetus is able to live outside the womb. So, at any time after 24 weeks gestation, which is considered the “point of viability,” a baby can be delivered to save the mother while also allowing the child a chance to live. During a late-term abortion, the child is still delivered, only it’s delivered dead rather than alive after the infant has been killed.

Second, partial birth-abortion itself is dangerous to the mother. Parker also declares,

Although the pregnancy is ended with the death of the fetus, the baby must still be delivered. In fact, in partial-birth abortions, the baby is delivered breech, which is difficult, painful, and puts the mother’s life at risk. So, when you hear that liberal talking point, where they like to ask, “What if the mother finds out that she could die during childbirth?” it’s important to know that a post-viability abortion isn’t going to prevent birth. In fact, birth is in the name—partial birth abortion. Only a c-section would prevent a vaginal birth, and the child doesn’t have to die for that.

Third, Donald Trump was absolutely right to say that “Hillary is saying in the ninth month you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby.” This is exactly what partial-birth abortion does.

Finally, we should not miss the fact that Hillary Clinton is proud to defend Planned Parenthood (PP). According to Wikipedia,

PPFA [Planned Parenthood Federation of America] is the largest single provider of reproductive health services, including abortion, in the United States. In their 2014 Annual Report, PPFA reported seeing over 2.5 million patients in over 4 million clinical visits and performing a total of nearly 9.5 million discrete services including 324,000 abortions. The organization has a combined annual revenue of US$1.3 billion [1.3 billion US dollars], including roughly US$530 million in government funding such as Medicaid reimbursements.

Abortion Providers Exploit Women

We have discussed Planned Parenthood’s appalling and illegal activities in earlier posts, as well as the urgent need to defund this organization. Abortion providers, including PP, claim to be helpful to women. They aren’t. They exploit them.

Many features of abortion on demand make it a practice that should be regulated and ultimately stopped. In this brief article I want to highlight just one aspect of abortion that everyone should oppose—especially pro-choice advocates who claim to be defending women.

Abortion Kills Women

Abortion on demand—especially late term abortion—increases the likelihood of sex-selection abortions. Such an abortion occurs when a baby’s sex is the one not desired by the mother or other adults involved in the situation. Sex-selection abortions create a lopsided population ratio of boys to girls, with boys significantly outnumbering girls in cultures where it is practiced. While the practice is creating significant societal problems in various foreign countries, including China, sex-selection abortions do take place in the United States (also go here, here, and here). Incredibly, in 2012, the House of Representatives, which at the time was controlled by Democrats, voted down proposed legislation that would have banned the practice.

Unfortunately, federal funding of PP has continued, even though Republicans have had control of both the House and Senate for two years.

McConnell,Mitch-012309-18422-jf 0024

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell “is essentially conceding that Senate Republicans are ready to scrap language affecting [funding for] Planned Parenthood” from a bill that would fund research to combat the Zika virus (also go here).

Democrats have accused Republicans of waging a “war on women,” yet abortion itself is a large part of the real war on women. Moreover, efforts to make abortion a safe procedure for women face resistance from these same Democrats. Thus, despite Republicans’ unwillingness hold PP accountable, Democrats’ rhetoric against Republicans rings hollow. Members of Barak Obama’s party aren’t really pro-choice, either; they want to force taxpayers to pay for a procedure they find objectionable (also go here and here).

Voters Have a Clear Choice

These facts should help the fog lift from the minds of any pro-lifers still struggling over this year’s election. Donald Trump should be applauded and supported for his clear statements on abortion—especially partial-birth abortion—during the third presidential debate. Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s statements make it abundantly clear how anyone calling himself or herself pro-life should vote in this year’s presidential race.

In the real war on women, pro-lifers are females’ true defenders.

 

Copyright © 2016 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.