Sunday Prayer - Lord PLEASE Forgive US!
.
Dear Lord,
The American Holocaust is still going on. Abortion is still legal in America. We pray in Jesus’ name that you will find it in your heart to forgive us, O’Lord.
Real American are fighting every day to stop abortion but liberals go on killing your creation every day.
50 Million (50,000,000) Americans have been killed so far.
Please forgive them because they are blinded by liberal hatred against life. Please support us in our war against the American Holocaust.
Amen
****************************************************
Facts about Late Term Abortion
- Late term abortions are legal in most states. “Late Term” means that an abortion can be done up to the moment of birth. This means that a birth is being induced and in the act of birth the baby is being killed.
- Some late term abortions are being done by putting a salt-acid mixture into the baby’s lungs so that the child suffocates.
- In case of a failed late term abortions, means that if the child is BORN ALIVE, the “doctor” will often kill the crying (LIVING) baby. The act of killing is often been done by drowning the struggling child in a bowl of water. Sometimes the baby will be just strangled to death or it’s head is being cut off.
- The remains of the child will be thrown in the trash or the corps will be used for medical testings.
-
INFANTICIDE - The following issues have been raised in order to get you to think more critically about infanticide and why infanticide would be an acceptable form of family planning among the majority of pre-industrial societies. It is normal for people in one society to judge the behavior of people in other societies in terms of the moral values of their own society. This is, in fact, the very definition of ethnocentrism. However, many issues can be raised regarding a variety of methods of family planning that place the practice of infanticide within a broader anthropological perspective.
- Most Americans would consider infanticide to be morally wrong. However, infanticide is widely practiced throughout the world. Is infanticide necessarily immoral and, if so, is it universally wrong? By what criteria do we make that determination, and do those criteria distinguish unambiguously between abortion, which is legal in our society, and infanticide which is not, but which is accepted and practiced in other societies?
- Abortion is legal and is accepted by the majority of the American population as morally correct. Why is abortion an acceptable method of family planning in the U.S., but not infanticide? To what extent are we, by accepting abortion and rejecting infanticide, defining one method of terminating a human life as morally acceptable while condemning another form as morally unacceptable? If infanticide is practiced by peoples who do not have access to abortion technology, can they be considered morally wrong for terminating a human life by the best means they have available to them while accepting our method of terminating a life because we possess the technological means to end that life before birth?
- How does the fact that our own society’s stand on both the legality and morality of abortion has changed radically in the past 30 years affect our certainty regarding the immorality of infanticide? Isn’t it quite possible that future generations may come to accept infanticide as a reasonable method of family planning, just as we now accept abortion and increasingly accept euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide –practices which would have resulted in a doctor’s losing his or her license to practice medicine a mere 10 years ago?
- Steven Pinker, in his article, “Why They Kill Their Newborns”, distinguishes between neonaticide and the killing of older children (filicide). He shows that, while our own society condemns infanticide, we are, in fact, quite tolerant of those who kill newly born children. He reports that of nearly 300 women charged with neonaticide in the U.S., not one spent more than a night in jail. The general population was much more willing to deal leniently, for example, with the Grossberg-Peterson case involving the killing of a newborn than they were with the case of Susan Smith, who killed her two sons: one 14 months old, and the other 3 year old.
- Our notion that infanticide is committed by disturbed individuals is also not supported by research. First of all, women who practice neonaticide generally go on to become loving supportive mothers when they do have and raise children (as do mothers who have had abortions), in contrast to those women who kill older children. Secondly, as Pinker states, “it’s hard to maintain that neonaticide is an illness when we learn that it has been practiced and accepted in most cultures throughout history.” That many societies practice infanticide is clearly illustrated by the articles in the Infanticide packet.
- The acceptance of abortion but not infanticide in the U.S. has been justified on the grounds that a baby is alive while a fetus is not. When does a human life begin? How do we define life? In the article referred to above, Steven Pinker discusses how difficult it is to determine when a human organism becomes a person with a right to life. Conception, birth, the end of the second trimester are all rather arbitrary definition points for when a human organism becomes a person. Viability is also problematic, given that the human infant cannot survive on its own for several years after its birth and that many infants cannot survive at all without medical intervention, to say nothing of large numbers of the elderly. Furthermore, infant viability is a matter of degree and is clearly much less developed in humans than in most other mammals. Given the difficulty of establishing clear objective criteria for when personhood is achieved –in some societies “personhood” is not conferred until well after birth– on what grounds do we claim that one point in the human organism’s development is more valid and objective (i.e., less arbitrary) for establishing “personhood” and, thus, a right to life than any other point? If the definition of “personhood” is largely socially determined, to what extent is the criteria used for defining “personhood” in our own society any more objective and valid than that used in other societies? How does the controversy over when an abortion is acceptably performed in the U.S. affect our understanding of the social basis of our society’s definition of when life begins? What factors determine who is likely to accept Pinker’s definition and who is likely to reject it? How does their stand on the issue reflect their personal interests rather than an objective scientific look at the issue? Furthermore, when we set arbitrary boundaries as our defining points for the beginning of life, to what extent do we inadvertently kill human organisms that develop more quickly than the established norm? Finally, why is “personhood” used to determine when a human organism is alive rather than some less subjective critria? If we don’t use “doghood” or “cathood” to determine when dogs and cats are alive, are we being logically inconsistent to use “personhood” to determine when humans are alive? Is there a uniform, objective biological definition for the beginning of life that can be applied systematically to all living organisms, including dogs, cats and humans?
- Most biology textbooks define life as possessing the following characteristics: Cells, energy, heredity, reproduction and responsiveness to the environment. All living things are composed of cells. Even such microscopic unicellular organisms as bacteria are considered alive. All living things also acquire and use energy to maintain metabolism. All living organisms also possess DNA organized into genes and chromosomes which form the blueprint for how that organism will develop and grow. Similarly, all living organisms are potentially capable of reproduction. Being able to reproduce offspring which share their genetic material, living organisms (unlike non-living matter) are able to cause the transfer of genetic information from one generation to the next. Finally, living organisms are responsive to their environments. That is, they are affected by their environments and attempt to adapt to those environments. Are these characteristics, which are presented as distinguishing living organisms in nearly every biology textbook written, less applicable to a fetus than to a baby or a young child, to an invalid or an octogenarian, or for that matter to any human being? (Would they also apply to both the sperm and the unfertilized egg? The Roman Catholic Church maintains that they do, which is why it opposed artificial birth control.) If so, then on what logical or scientific grounds is it determined that a baby or a child is alive but not a fetus? What does this say about our society’s support of abortion but not infanticide? Is it logically consistent? And if it is not, then why is it so widely accepted?
The definition of when life begins has changed radically in the U.S. during the past 40 years. To what extent has the definition of when life begins changed because newer definitions serve the changing interests of the individuals or political groups doing the defining? To what extent is the changing definition of life and the recourse to such concepts as “personhood” a function of the pivotal role that the abortion issue plays in American politics? Proponents of abortion in the U.S. refer to abortion as a “right” and challenge any qualification on a woman’s “right to choose”. Any factor that threatens that “right” is vigorously opposed, including mandatory waiting periods and parental notification laws. To what extent might the application of an objective interspecies definition of life to humans in general and to fetuses in particular, also be perceived as a threat by those who want to promote abortion as their “right”? A recent article in The Economist titled “The War That Never Ends” (June 13, 2003) examined the abortion issue in the U.S. at the 25th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. The article distinguished between the continuing controversy over abortion in the U.S. and its general acceptance in Europe, including in such predominantly Roman Catholic countries as France, Spain and Italy. The article viewed the problem this way.
Please forgive us.
14 Comments so far
Leave a reply
Since 1973 you had around 47 million abortions in the States.
Fact is - every year abortion doctors get millions of Dollars from despaired young women (cause they have no money for their child, of her families will not accept the father of this child, or they will loose their job and so on……..)
I am firmly convinced, not the young women are responsible - it is your conservative and bigoted society in rural areas of the Middle West and the Southern States. I tell you why:
A very high number of young women commit suicide after their abortions!
They are not responsible - not the liberals or any other political party. Responsible are bigoted Christians, who claim and point their finger on: This young woman commited extramartial sexual intercourse!! If this young woman lives in a small Christian community - she will loose everything. Her consequences - abortion and suicide.
(We know that, because we have similar problems in European rural areas too - where Christian faith is still powerful).
This is your beloved conservative American Church!
But we had such tragedies in some small villages in South Europe and in the Alps too - especially in rural areas (not such a high number of abortions like in the States).
I was talking to some women, who had abortions - no one of them had a “happy” life after her abortion - most of them fall in deep depressions - or they commit suicide.
Nearby every woman loves her baby too much. Women who had abortions told me, it was her intolerant family, or the company boss at work, or her husband or less money…….and abortion doctors get millions of dollars………….
Please, don`t tell me the liberals are responsible for that. Mainly the Christian communities are responsible, because they claim an abstaining life before marriage. But sometimes sexual contact will happen (this is normal and has nothing to do with the Christian faith, this was just the idea of some Bible writers and translaters - this was not the idea of Jesus and God - in the past bigoted churchmen wrote that into the Bible)
Right now you can see a smililar example by Palin`s 17 years old daugther.
But mother Palin had to be tolerant in her position right now - and they will marry (on the other hand a “hurry-up” marriage is not the best…but we will see).
Mostly just young women have abortion. No girl or woman wants to kill her baby. Responsible for abortions are bigoted and conservative people, communities and companies - and the abortion doctors get their megabucks year by year.
Peter Vienna
Can someone, please, explain me why are they always put pictures of dead babies in the articles about abortions? Do they really think that it can change someones opinion on the subject? It’s just a dead fetus, nothing to be shocked or worried about. I cant possibly imagine someone changing they stance on abortion because of some pictures.
Peter,
liberal policies are directly responsible for these millions of killings.
RottenKnight,
how dare you saying something like that! It’s not “just a dead fetus”, IT’S A HUMAN BEING! Don’t you have any respect for human life, you disgusting pig?
shelley
Shelly, you have no respect for human life, and no, the liberal policies are not responsible for these killings. And it IS JUST A DEAD FETUS. Until the fetus is capable of self-sustained living it is not considered “alive.” But your definition a zygote is a living human being.
Cidkh2,
you sound like a nazi. Are you a nazi?
Ok. According to your rules… If somebody is not “Capable of self-sustained living”… if you are sick, let’s just say you have food poisoning and you need urgent medical attention.. according to your own rules ‘YOU ARE NOT ALIVE’. Well good to know.
Are you willing to kill all disabled persons? Are you ready to heat up the ovens you good German?
Listen, you moron, a fetus has a heartbeat, a fetus has thoughts and can feel pain, can hear the outside world and a fetus has a soul. Who are you to decide what is Life? Look at the pictures. If you have a new born baby in front of you, do you honestly say “it’s not alive, because it can’t live on it’s own”? You are a very sick person. I feel sorry for you.
Shelley
okay… clearly I need to outline every aspect, because you are simply not intelligent enough to understand the idea I am trying to articulate.
Self-sustained living means that, in this case, the organ systems (or in uni-cellular organisms, organelles) are developed enough, so that the organism is capable of life. Up until right near the end of the pregnancy, the fetus is simply not capable of life.
What do you consider human (if you say a creature in the image of god, your a moron) 46 chromosomes is the general rule. When you make bigoted statements like “Listen, you moron, a fetus has a heartbeat, a fetus has thoughts and can feel pain, can hear the outside world and a fetus has a soul. Who are you to decide what is Life?” Well…
A fetus does have a heartbeat…. after a while it can take up to 17 weeks for the heart to even have a minimal function
While the presence of a soul, is something you can’t really prove or disprove, regardless it is not evidence.
No, actually the fetus is not capable of even rudimentary conscience thought, and no, it can’t feel pain, the brain is simply not developed enough until the third trimester.
And, in order to decide what is life? Well, life, as a scientific term, has a definition… so I;m not the one deciding.
“you sound like a nazi. Are you a nazi?”
Nope
“you are sick, let’s just say you have food poisoning and you need urgent medical attention”
Well i was actually referring to, your brain is developed enough to support all living functions under optimal circumstances. But I’ll admit, you did do an amazing job of attacking me when i misspoke (or rather, chose not to elaborate.)
“If you have a new born baby in front of you, do you honestly say “it’s not alive, because it can’t live on it’s own”? ”
An abortion is not killing a new-born baby, an abortion is aborting from the pregnancy. And if it was capable of surviving through a pregnancy, then the organism would be alive (unless of course there was a natural error in the pregnancy or severe genetic defect, which almost always leads to a natural miscarriage, often occurring within the first 20 weeks.)
Just as an FYI, I don’t support any illegal for of prolicide (I know, i said i don’t support illegal things, but feticide is a non-homocidal subset of prolicide)
“Late term abortions are legal in most states. “Late Term” means that an abortion can be done up to the moment of birth.”
Here comes a fact….
“# Some late term abortions are being done by putting a salt-acid mixture into the baby’s lungs so that the child suffocates.
# In case of a failed late term abortions, means that if the child is BORN ALIVE, the “doctor” will often kill the crying (LIVING) baby. The act of killing is often been done by drowning the struggling child in a bowl of water. Sometimes the baby will be just strangled to death or it’s head is being cut off.
# The remains of the child will be thrown in the trash or the corps will be used for medical testings.”
Followed by such an outrageous lie, it can only be summarized by saying OMGWTFBBQ.
The fact you would agree with this viewpoint, (or perhaps have even been the one who wrote this article) clearly shows you have no understanding of what you are protesting against, or open-mindedness to anything outside of your poor interpretation of the bible.
and as a bit of sadistic humor
“He was killed by heartless liberals that don’t value life. He could have invented a cure for cancer…”
His stem cells might actually wind up curing cancer.. fancy that
Shelley, WHO ARE YOU… to decide what life is? Take a look at what you preach then compare it to the Nazis of old. You’ll find it parallel to Hitler’s teachings. The racism, violence and non-tolerance. It’s your kind that’s sick and it is I who feel deeply sorry for you. If abortions were illegal, how long would the women who still go through with them do? Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it’s going to stop. Slander is illegal but this site does a good job getting away with it almost on a daily basis. You should open your eyes take a look at the things you hide behind (The Bible and Constitution). You’ve no right to judge others.
Obama/Biden ‘08
To Shelley Goodman
I have respect for a human life. But fetus is not a human.
Also, now one answered my question.
Shelley - I can talk about Southern Europe and the Alps only - I met some women who had abortions - all their problems have their background in their intolerant society (family, boss, community…) - in Europe it is a society problem. Of course, I am definitely against abortions. I have 2 boys (now they are young men) and we still love them.
But I know from rural areas in the mountains or at the Mediterranean Sea - if this young woman will get a baby before marriage - she will get serious problems. Many of them commit suicide after their abortions. I mean, this can`t be the right way!
I blame all these abortion doctors, who earn a lot of money every year. On the other hand, this unmarried pregnant young woman has to flee from their intolerant family or village community.
This is a serious problem - but I realized, especially intolerant and bigoted village communities are responsible. It would better to support such a young women in this difficult situation. Every woman loves her baby - otherwise they wouldn`t commit suicide after their abortion. Not all, but a high number of them commit suicide. This is a society problem in Europe. I don`t know the situation in North America right now - but I think, it can be similar.
Peter Vienna
“liberal policies are directly responsible for these millions of killings.”
You always here pro-life supporters saying how terrible abortion is and how they are going to vote for a conservative “PRO-LIFE” candidate.
But what about the conservative policies that these “pro-life” politicians are in favor of that kill millions of people?
Loose gun control
Misleading the world to go to war
Pro death penalty
I like how the STR crew won’t address these comments, they’ll say what they can on their soapbox but they won’t come down and actually defend their opinions.
Cidkh2,
we don’t need to defend our ‘opinions’ becaue they are God’s laws. Abortion is murder and whatever you are saying or however you are twisting the truth, nothing will change that simple fact of life!
Shelley
The simple fact of life is that god does not exist. So, no matter how much you scream about his “laws”, you still need to defend your opinion, else it costs nothing.