Obama Admin Sues Pro-Life Sidewalk Counselor Over Misdemeanor

[RobbyS]

What or who do you stand for, the unborn child or a law that allows for that which is morally illegitimate?

Should the moral citizens of any nation expend equal energy defending a law that allows access to an abortuary as they would defending the life of the child who is going to be murdered at that abortuary?

Isn’t there a difference between obstructing free passage of a mother who is walking into an abortuary and moving an escort’s arm out of your way?

Is there a moral flaw in such an action?

Does such an action violate a natural right, such as the right to have your mother know that you’re alive inside of her and that there are other options?

Can such an action, moving someone’s arm, in order to inform a woman that she IS a mother about to kill her child be legitimately criminalized or is this just a law to discourage people from communicating with the mother?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

It is amazing how quickly we get accustomed to acts we once thought repulsive. Dropping bombs on civilians? Well, we denounced the Nazis when they did that in Spain. Then of course during WWII we dropped hundreds of tons of bombs on civilians, not on targets of any military value, but just bombs to terrorize civilian populations. That was done in self-defence, especially by the British, because we feared losing the war and falling under the power of the Nazis. Still it is awful to think of all those innocents who died, or if not innocent, then ordinary people like ourselves. Something, though, is terribly wrong that men should do this sort of thing and not think it wrong. This sort of thing is, I guess what the poe means by the dictatorship of relativism, the sin of Adam, which is to call that which is good evil, and what is evil good. This inability to hold to true north.

 

[catharina]

What is unfortunate here is that some or many Catholics who seem to be supporting this suit are unaware that the law does not work the other way around. I was at an abortuary where the lawyer for the slaughter house waved a piece of paper in the face of one of our brothers, when he was in full habit. It’s not as if she did not know that he was a religious. She waved the paper less than two inches from his nose to keep him from seeing a couple enter the clinic and at the same time that she waved this paper she shouted at him, “Don’t you have any altar boys to bother today?” The police and other bystanders did noting, because such action is not illegal. Looked like harrassment to me.

Another time we were at another slaughter house run by Planned Parenthood and one of the employees stood in front of a bishop, who was wearing his cassock, to block his sign and that’s not considered illegal. She knew who he was. He was across the street. She walked across and blocked the view, but that’s not illegal.

The way that the law is worded is to protect free access to the “clinics”. It does not protect the personal space of those who come to pray and to try to help these couples. It’s time that people in this country realized that the laws are being manipulated to protect murder, not to protect justice.

Moving someone’s arm out of your way so that you can talk to another person or hand them a piece of paper may be illegal, but how about waving a paper in front of the face of a religious and shouting an obscenity at him? Shouldn’t that be illegal? Shouldn’t it be illegal to block someone’s sign? Would the Black movement, the Jewish movement, the women’s movement, or the gay movement tolerate such treatment? I doubt it. There would be law suits flying and the media would be outraged.

It’s time that pro-life people became outraged too. This month is the time to do it. There are two major marches coming up on the anniversary of Roe vs Wade, one in Washington and the other in San Fco. If people can’t make it to either coast, they can organize and get permits to hold such marches in their home towns.

If we’re going to protect rights, let’s protect everyone’s rights. We have a constitutional right to gather peacefully. Peacefully does not just mean that we not bother others. It also means that others not bother us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

As always, bless you, Brother.

 

[genevievelives]

The problem is that we have to take a stand. Sometimes you can justifiably support a civil law without compromising a moral law. But that’s not always the case.

This is an example of one. Let’s look at the facts as we know them. There can be more that we do not know.

The counselor moved the arm of the escort. It does not say that he was aggressive or tried to do harm to the escort.

The counselor wanted to get some information to the mother who was entering the abortuary. It does not say that he was obstructing her passage.

Should the counselor have touched the escort? No. Was the action anything different from what any spontaneous action on anyone’s part? No. Someone blocked his access to the mother and he sponteaneously moved the person’s arm out of the way. Many of us would have done the same thing and not have though about it, because no harm was intended to either the escort or the mother.

Conclusion, the law is being applied to a spontaneous human behavior that did not intend to do harm and did not do harm. The question becomes, why? The answer is as I said above. I learned, from a father who did this for a living for the Dept of State, that laws were often written and enforced to dissuade and discouraged, more often than to defend innocents and protect rights. The method is simple. You identify something as a right, that no one else would think to argue about, such as access to reproductive healthcare. Who’s going to argue with that? But what you have in mind is to discourage others from interfering with abortions. If truth be told, we have never needed laws to protect people’s rights to access healthcare facilities. Only nut jobs attempt to stop people from entering healthcare facilities. That can be taken care of under harassment laws, which are already in the book. So, . . . when you create a specific law for access to clinics that offer reproductive healthcare, what services are you actually protecting? What services would people have a problem with? The answer: abortion.

What is the purpose of such a law? To discourage people from interfering with abortions. This law works just as the nuclear arms issue worked during the Cold War. No one planned to use them. But having them on both sides discouraged anyone from seriously thinking about it. Yes, laws do discourage, because they threaten people.

This law does not simply say that women have a right to enter a clinic. It also carries a penalty for those who interfere. The first part of the law is really unnecessary. No one has ever questioned the right of a woman to obtain reproductive healthcare. Why pass the law unless you wanted to tag on the penalty? This is the part that is meant to discourage or even threaten.

Now comes the question. When such a law is applied to a person such as the pro-life worker in this case, is it being applied with honesty? Did the pro-life worker violate the woman’s constitutional right to healthcare?

If we think like the abortionists do, then we would agree, because they consider abortion healthcare. The problem with agreeing with them is that pregnancy is not a disease and abortion is not a cure. Even when the child has a handicapping condition, the pregnancy itself is not a disease. Therefore, abortion is still not a cure.

If we think rationally, a woman who approaches an abortuary is not seeking reproductive healthcare. She is going there with the intent and mission to allow someone to kill her child.

Now we have people on these threads who are defending the law over the right of the child to be protected by the pro-life worker.

Sorry, but according to natural law, the rights of the unborn child trump the rights of the escort not to have his or her arm touched. The escort was not hurt or threatened in any way. The act was a knee-jerk reaction not the part of the pro-life counselor, which could have happened in any situation and would have been blown off.

Think of the number of times that you go to a voting site and are met at the door by members of both parties all wanting to speak to you and all wanting to give you a flyer or some such thing. Are they interfering with your access? Are they annoying? Sometimes. Is their presence enough to pass laws about free access to voting sites? No. We already have laws that protect the right to vote, just as we have laws that protect the right to healthcare.

This was a law suit brought on because the issue was abortion, not access to healthcare.

Moral human beings need to remember, there are times when the law is immoral or when the law is moral, but its application is immoral, because it’s being manipulated.

Let us not get caught up in the rhetoric of the pro-abortion and pro-choice people. They have many good lawyers behind them who are excellent at rhetoric.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

So it’s OK to break an existing law, or temporarily re-write that law, because your needs are greater than those of any other person on the scene, and your moral compass trumps that of any other individual present? I think not.

gen

 

[genevievelives]

Back in the 1950’s civil rights protesters used to ‘sit-in’ at lunch counters where blacks were not allowed. These were demonstrators for civil rights, and it prevented those establishments from conducting normal business. Most of those who participated in sit-ins were arrested. But I’m sure the lunch counter owners would have found a “Freedom of Access to Lunch Counters” law to be useful.

mm hmm. Guess it was splashier and more dramatic than working within the system to change the laws.

gen

 

[genevievelives]

Hi, Genvievelives: I like the name you have chosen for yourself and especially poignant on this particular thread as we are talking about life and death. You live and your mom did not think that her reproductive health could be best served by having you pulled out of her womb piece by piece for her convenience or in her misguided attempt to solve a life problem by resorting to violence. You consider facing the truth of what abortion is as an insult to the “patient’s right to choose” to kill her own baby. I am guessing you are a healthcare worker, perhaps even in an abortion mill, since you refer to these women as patients. All women who have participated in this violence have to pay a price I am so sorry to say. All those who have lost a loved one - a child, a grandchild, a sister or brother that the world will never know. Millions of babies have been killed and billions are affected forever. Yes, we need to pray, on our knees, at home, in church and on the streets in front of these horrible places. God has led you to this particular website for a reason. I pray that you will consider some of the things you learn here and pray about them yourself, asking for the light of the Holy Spirit. We are all praying for you, too.

First, make no assumptions about my name or its significance.

Second, make no assumptions about the actions of any poster on this forum other than yourself. You speak for Sherry G only.

I think you have an exaggerated notion about the degree of trauma, remorse and/or other types of suffering that surrounds abortion. The many women who seek help in therapy or retreat are not to be discounted; their grief and lingering fear are real and must be addressed. However, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of women who feel neither grief nor remorse nor sadness nor fear nor anything other than relief. These are the empty chairs in the therapy rooms; they do not feel they need therapy or counseling and they get on with their lives. The vast majority must have an appreciation for the radical nature of the procedure and the fact that life is lost in the process. They reconcile it in ways that they feel appropriate to their individual experiences. Guttmacher tells us that 61.8% of abortions are performed before the gestational age of nine weeks, 88% within the first 12 weeks (these statistics are from 2006). They also tell us that 28% of abortions that took place during that year were performed on Catholic women, presumably women who identified themselves as Catholic, whether practicing or not. It is strongly argued on this forum that once a Catholic, always a Catholic, and I believe this to my core and also to my dismay. It makes no difference whether the Catholic woman is practicing or not; Catholicism, its doctrine and dogma, are so deeply ingrained in us that when making a decision such as seeking an abortion, we know we are sinning, we know we are committing a mortal sin, we know our souls are in peril, and yet we proceed anyway. Consider making such a decision in this emotional and spiritual state; consider the resultant conflict. Of course there are women who are filled with remorse and sorrow over their abortions, but I believe they are equally distraught over having played a part in positioning themselves to have to make such a choice. It is a complex, knotty set of thoughts and feelings, and it most definitely drives many women into therapy or counseling.

Pro-life folks would like to sweep under the rug the thought that women can and do have abortions and go about their lives without experiencing much negative impact, but it does happen and it will continue to happen. It does not mean they are proud of their actions, or that they have never felt a loss. Perhaps they learned from this dreadful experience and lived on never to repeat it. That’s a gain for pro-life, is it not?

“You consider facing the truth of what abortion is as an insult to the ‘patient’s right to choose’ to kill her own baby,” you contend. This is a misinterpretation of everything I have said. To clarify, this is what I wrote: *“I also will not tolerate that lowbrow baby-killer’ stuff that occasionally makes the news. I do not consider a graphic photograph of an aborted fetus a prayer. I consider it a judgment and an insult to the patient’s right to choose what to do with her pregnancy.” * Bad manners is bad manners, no matter what stage we’re performing on. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion, but no one is entitled to judge another. And, no, I am not in the healthcare field.

gen

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

First, make no assumptions about my name or its significance.

Second, make no assumptions about the actions of any poster on this forum other than yourself. You speak for Sherry G only.

I think you have an exaggerated notion about the degree of trauma, remorse and/or other types of suffering that surrounds abortion. The many women who seek help in therapy or retreat are not to be discounted; their grief and lingering fear are real and must be addressed. However, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of women who feel neither grief nor remorse nor sadness nor fear nor anything other than relief. These are the empty chairs in the therapy rooms; they do not feel they need therapy or counseling and they get on with their lives. The vast majority must have an appreciation for the radical nature of the procedure and the fact that life is lost in the process. They reconcile it in ways that they feel appropriate to their individual experiences. Guttmacher tells us that 61.8% of abortions are performed before the gestational age of nine weeks, 88% within the first 12 weeks (these statistics are from 2006). They also tell us that 28% of abortions that took place during that year were performed on Catholic women, presumably women who identified themselves as Catholic, whether practicing or not. It is strongly argued on this forum that once a Catholic, always a Catholic, and I believe this to my core and also to my dismay. It makes no difference whether the Catholic woman is practicing or not; Catholicism, its doctrine and dogma, are so deeply ingrained in us that when making a decision such as seeking an abortion, we know we are sinning, we know we are committing a mortal sin, we know our souls are in peril, and yet we proceed anyway. Consider making such a decision in this emotional and spiritual state; consider the resultant conflict. Of course there are women who are filled with remorse and sorrow over their abortions, but I believe they are equally distraught over having played a part in positioning themselves to have to make such a choice. It is a complex, knotty set of thoughts and feelings, and it most definitely drives many women into therapy or counseling.

Pro-life folks would like to sweep under the rug the thought that women can and do have abortions and go about their lives without experiencing much negative impact, but it does happen and it will continue to happen. It does not mean they are proud of their actions, or that they have never felt a loss. Perhaps they learned from this dreadful experience and lived on never to repeat it. That’s a gain for pro-life, is it not?

“You consider facing the truth of what abortion is as an insult to the ‘patient’s right to choose’ to kill her own baby,” you contend. This is a misinterpretation of everything I have said. To clarify, this is what I wrote: *“I also will not tolerate that lowbrow baby-killer’ stuff that occasionally makes the news. I do not consider a graphic photograph of an aborted fetus a prayer. I consider it a judgment and an insult to the patient’s right to choose what to do with her pregnancy.” * Bad manners is bad manners, no matter what stage we’re performing on. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion, but no one is entitled to judge another. And, no, I am not in the healthcare field.

gen

I think you may be overtating the amount of women who “Feel No Guilt,” but even if True, I would see this as Tragic, and Further Indication of Our Society’s Continuing Secularism and Devaluation Of Life.

 

[kentuckyliz]

The women’s centers that are offering abortion alternatives–including material support, social services, information about legal rights to child support, assistance with negotiating with partners and families–these are turning out to be a far more effective strategy. It is a safe place for a woman to think out loud about her situation and have an ally who is supportive of her. There’s one in my community and they do a great job. I have their brochures in my office–but there hasn’t been a great need. I live in a very pro-natal culture. They love children here–a child is not a tragedy but a blessing. In fact, our yellow pages has only listings for abortion alternatives–no listings for abortion providers!

 

[genevievelives]

I think you may be overtating the amount of women who “Feel No Guilt,” but even if True, I would see this as Tragic, and Further Indication of Our Society’s Continuing Secularism and Devaluation Of Life.

I can go by the number of women with whom I am well acquainted who have had abortions over the decades, and of that number perhaps seventy percent suffered emotional trauma at the time of the abortion, and roughly ten percent still have twinges of misgiving. These are mature women, in their forties, fifties and sixties.

You May See That As You Wish.

gen

 

[genevievelives]

The women’s centers that are offering abortion alternatives–including material support, social services, information about legal rights to child support, assistance with negotiating with partners and families–these are turning out to be a far more effective strategy. It is a safe place for a woman to think out loud about her situation and have an ally who is supportive of her. There’s one in my community and they do a great job. I have their brochures in my office–but there hasn’t been a great need. I live in a very pro-natal culture. They love children here–a child is not a tragedy but a blessing. In fact, our yellow pages has only listings for abortion alternatives–no listings for abortion providers!

These represent “a more effective strategy” to what? They are offering support to women who are already pregnant, as you tell it. Would you agree that the problem has its beginnings in the sexual act that creates the life? What are they doing to educate women - and men, boys and girls - about prevention of pregnancy, and is their guidance abstinence-only based? If so, what are their statistics for success and failure?

gen

 

[NeedImprovement]

I personally have 3 friends who have had abortions.

• The first tells me that she can suppress the feelings most of the time but every once in a while it comes back up to the surface and she must look what she has done straight in the face.
• The second, told me it happened before he and his wife were married - they aborted a child, but the doctor made it appear to them like there was no other choice - his own words. And he is moved to tears each time he speaks about it.
• The third actually had two abortions. She says she still can’t believe how she was duped into having the second one … afraid she would lose the guy if she didn’t (and then ended up losing him anyway).

Each of these friends has extreme regret for ever having killed a child in the womb. That would make it, then, 100% of the cases I know of personally, concerning people who have had at least one abortion, and who have decided to reveal those things to me, who experience a deep regret for having aborted the child. To what extent they are traumatized, only God or a medical professional would really be able to tell tell.

Now, Kermit Gosnell has the abortionists scrambling for cover and at a loss for words. He was inducing labor and then severing the newborn infants’ spinal cords at the neck sad_yes: … this guy really needs our prayers). He was doing exactly the same thing abortionists do inside the womb, but because he took the baby out of the womb to do it, it is called murder. Doctors are acting as if the child in the womb is not a human being, while modern science tells us it most certainly is a human being.

Abortionists cannot explain how a viable child inside the womb is not a human being, but if you force that child prematurely out of the womb only seconds later and sever its spinal cord, then it is a human being. Unfortunately, in this case, the law is a lie - just like abortion is a lie.

---

Our loving Pope John Paul II said that, “ ‘contraception and abortion are very closely connected, as fruits of the same tree’ (Evangelium vitae, no. 13); and, as he has pointed out in some of his addresses and homilies, contraception too is opposed to the good of human life. "

Professors of moral theology confirm for us that [CONTRACEPTION IS THE GATEWAY TO THE CULTURE OF DEATH (CONTRACEPTION, GATEWAY TO THE CULTURE OF DEATH by Prof. William E. May).

 

[Sherry_G]

First, make no assumptions about my name or its significance.

Second, make no assumptions about the actions of any poster on this forum other than yourself. You speak for Sherry G only.

I think you have an exaggerated notion about the degree of trauma, remorse and/or other types of suffering that surrounds abortion. The many women who seek help in therapy or retreat are not to be discounted; their grief and lingering fear are real and must be addressed. However, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of women who feel neither grief nor remorse nor sadness nor fear nor anything other than relief. These are the empty chairs in the therapy rooms; they do not feel they need therapy or counseling and they get on with their lives. The vast majority must have an appreciation for the radical nature of the procedure and the fact that life is lost in the process. They reconcile it in ways that they feel appropriate to their individual experiences. Guttmacher tells us that 61.8% of abortions are performed before the gestational age of nine weeks, 88% within the first 12 weeks (these statistics are from 2006). They also tell us that 28% of abortions that took place during that year were performed on Catholic women, presumably women who identified themselves as Catholic, whether practicing or not. It is strongly argued on this forum that once a Catholic, always a Catholic, and I believe this to my core and also to my dismay. It makes no difference whether the Catholic woman is practicing or not; Catholicism, its doctrine and dogma, are so deeply ingrained in us that when making a decision such as seeking an abortion, we know we are sinning, we know we are committing a mortal sin, we know our souls are in peril, and yet we proceed anyway. Consider making such a decision in this emotional and spiritual state; consider the resultant conflict. Of course there are women who are filled with remorse and sorrow over their abortions, but I believe they are equally distraught over having played a part in positioning themselves to have to make such a choice. It is a complex, knotty set of thoughts and feelings, and it most definitely drives many women into therapy or counseling.

Pro-life folks would like to sweep under the rug the thought that women can and do have abortions and go about their lives without experiencing much negative impact, but it does happen and it will continue to happen. It does not mean they are proud of their actions, or that they have never felt a loss. Perhaps they learned from this dreadful experience and lived on never to repeat it. That’s a gain for pro-life, is it not?

“You consider facing the truth of what abortion is as an insult to the ‘patient’s right to choose’ to kill her own baby,” you contend. This is a misinterpretation of everything I have said. To clarify, this is what I wrote: *“I also will not tolerate that lowbrow baby-killer’ stuff that occasionally makes the news. I do not consider a graphic photograph of an aborted fetus a prayer. I consider it a judgment and an insult to the patient’s right to choose what to do with her pregnancy.” * Bad manners is bad manners, no matter what stage we’re performing on. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion, but no one is entitled to judge another. And, no, I am not in the healthcare field.

gen

Everything you have written here only speaks more loudly about just what a tragedy and a horror abortion is. You reiterate your same statement: ]“I also will not tolerate that lowbrow baby-killer’ stuff that occasionally makes the news. I do not consider a graphic photograph of an aborted fetus a prayer. I consider it a judgment and an insult to the patient’s right to choose what to do with her pregnancy.” Just to be clear that I am not misrepresenting your statement, I just copied and pasted it again. You call showing a true picture of what an abortion does to a baby a judgement and an insult to the womans right to choose. Her pregnancy is her child. Right to choose is an incomplete sentence…choosing to kill an innocent human being. Medical science has shown with no equivocation that a baby is a complete human being at the moment of conception, no matter if its 8 weeks, 8 months in utero or 8 years old or 80 years old. Moving on to the statement about how women “get over it after awhile” and are just fine, that is a load of manure. My first grandchild was a murder victim 26 years ago. I will never get over it and neither will my daughter.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Almost 15 years ago, Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe, M.S., M.D., Ph.D., FCAP, FACC, FAAFS , explains that through genetics and forensics …

“The question as to when human life and personhood begins has been made a controversial issue because the proponents of abortion do not want it to begin at least before the first 24 weeks of gestation. There, however, should be no controversy because the scientific facts are incontrovertible…”

Imagine the technological advances which are at our disposal today, even within those last 15 years, which support unequivocally the scientific testimony of human personhood in the womb from the moment of conception. Now contrast that against what experts from the scientific community were saying as far back as 1981 (April 23-24) when they appeared before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to provide their testimony ,responding to the question : **When does human life begin **?

• Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.
• “Father of Modern Genetics” Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence.”
• Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
• Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: “The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception.”
• Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, “I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty … is not a human being.”
• Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: “To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous.”
• Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the “Father of In Vitro Fertilization” notes, “Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind.” And on the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, “To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion.”
• Professor Eugene Diamond: “…either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty.”

30 years ago … ! …… with the technology available at that time , medical science stood up to say, “Abortion is a lie.”

Where are today’s abortionists being educated ?

 

[genevievelives]

I personally have 3 friends who have had abortions.

• The first tells me that she can suppress the feelings most of the time but every once in a while it comes back up to the surface and she must look what she has done straight in the face.
• The second, told me it happened before he and his wife were married - they aborted a child, but the doctor made it appear to them like there was no other choice - his own words. And he is moved to tears each time he speaks about it.
• The third actually had two abortions. She says she still can’t believe how she was duped into having the second one … afraid she would lose the guy if she didn’t (and then ended up losing him anyway).

Each of these friends has extreme regret for ever having killed a child in the womb. That would make it, then, 100% of the cases I know of personally, concerning people who have had at least one abortion, and who have decided to reveal those things to me, who experience a deep regret for having aborted the child. To what extent they are traumatized, only God or a medical professional would really be able to tell tell.

Now, Kermit Gosnell has the abortionists scrambling for cover and at a loss for words. He was inducing labor and then severing the newborn infants’ spinal cords at the neck sad_yes: … this guy really needs our prayers). He was doing exactly the same thing abortionists do inside the womb, but because he took the baby out of the womb to do it, it is called murder. Doctors are acting as if the child in the womb is not a human being, while modern science tells us it most certainly is a human being.

Abortionists cannot explain how a viable child inside the womb is not a human being, but if you force that child prematurely out of the womb only seconds later and sever its spinal cord, then it is a human being. Unfortunately, in this case, the law is a lie - just like abortion is a lie.

---

Our loving Pope John Paul II said that, “ ‘contraception and abortion are very closely connected, as fruits of the same tree’ (Evangelium vitae, no. 13); and, as he has pointed out in some of his addresses and homilies, contraception too is opposed to the good of human life. "

Professors of moral theology confirm for us that [CONTRACEPTION IS THE GATEWAY TO THE CULTURE OF DEATH (CONTRACEPTION, GATEWAY TO THE CULTURE OF DEATH by Prof. William E. May).

And what of the non-viable? Are you suggesting that be the sole criterion for eligibility to be rescued from an abortion procedure?

The law is not a lie; it simply exists without feelings or tears or a hidden agenda. Abortion is not a lie; it is a medical procedure. Now, you may feel that those who support either are liars; if so, say so. But these inanimate things are not lies. You just regard them as unfortunate circumstances in today’s society and want to give them a name which shows on which side of the “moral fence” you reside. I’m not telling you that you have no right to be incensed; I’m just saying these things aren’t lies but facts, facts you resent having to live with in your life.

Your Couple Number Two: does the woman tear up just talking about it or is that just the male part of the couple?

gen

 

[NeedImprovement]

Anyone who would’ve clicked on the link “Kermit Gosnell” provided in post # 50 - the same link contained in the quote in post # 53, would’ve discovered that the word “viable” comes from that BBC news article .

Abortion is a **lie **of many colors . It says, “the child in the womb is not a human being.” Any law reinforcing that error is also a lie. Truth and Life go together [John 14:6] .

Former Planned Parenthood executive Abby Johnson speaks of "selling "women abortions in this article That Keeps On Hurting**Lie ** .

Father Frank Pavone (Priests For Life) in this excellent article Behind AbortionLie actually traces the (“frightfully familiar”) lie of abortion back to the Original Lie. He also describes some of the many lies that emanate from the lie of abortion.

It is interesting to note how no one is able to directly challenge the medical experts’ testimony , even from 30 years ago ( post # 52 ), confirming that abortion is a lie. Consider for a moment, if you will, the 7th medical expert, Dr. Landrum Shettles’ testimony :

“Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind.” And on the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, “To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion.”

Here, Dr. Shettles conveys that the law, based on the Roe vs Wade decision, and abortion are both a lie. Denial of the truth is a lie.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Arguably the greatest scientific mind of all time, Dr. Albert Einstein, in his 4 articles Religion and Science, Science and Religion I, Science and Religion II,Religion and Science, Irreconcilable ? , wrote the following :

“Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: **science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” **

We have amazing medical technology at our fingertips in 2011… to name several, microsurgery, and 3D and 4D scans . Just what we are able to see today should alone be enough to let us know the truth.

It is time to dispel this spiteful drivel coined by abortionists who for decades have been saying (and still say) that anyone who says “life begins at the moment of conception”, is living in the past - in the Middle Ages.

As we discover, it is precisely the opposite which is true. To quote Professor Einstein again, science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind . We who know life begins at the moment of conception, substantiate this reality on both: on religion and on the incontrovertible testimony of medical experts combined with the cutting edge medical technology which is available today. Abortion has neither of these, and is therefore, a void…emtpy…lifeless. The proof is all around us now.

It is highly unlikely that anyone who adheres to the feeble notion that abortion is simply a medical procedure, could elaborate on that procedure very much without ultimately describing a murder in the womb or tripping over their words to avoid doing so .

If they actually believe the lie,then they are to be truly pitied (and always prayed for). They are like children who prefer to hide in a dark closet who, as soon as they hear footsteps, cry out , " Don’t turn on the light !"