Mr. Akin also stated that the female anatomy can resist unwanted
impregnation. This, too, is absurd, offensive and incorrect.
Medical science has established conclusively that women cannot
internally block an unwanted union of egg and sperm, no matter
the relationship between male and female. I think even
schoolchildren understand that.

What has gone unmentioned, however, in the cacophony of
condemnation by Republicans and Democrats, is the implication in
Mr. Akin s comments that rape is not a moral justification for
abortion. In that, he is correct: It is not.

Abortion takes the life of innocent human beings who are the
most vulnerable in our society. Abortion is today the most
frequently performed medical procedure in the United States.
American physicians perform about two abortions every minute of
every hour of every day: about 1 million a year since 1973. In
my home state of New Jersey, abortion is permitted up to the
moment of birth, and the state will even pay for it if the
mother meets certain financial criteria.

How low have we sunk? What are the consequences of this mass
slaughter? How did we get here?

We got here because of the most reprehensible and
unconstitutional Supreme Court opinion in the modern era. In a
throwback to its infamous Dred Scott decision in which a pre-
Civil War Supreme Court declared that blacks are not persons and
hence cannot claim the protections of the Constitution the
court essentially said the same in Roe v. Wade of fetuses in the
womb.

Roe v. Wade has spawned more slaughter than all 20th-century
tyrants combined. The consequences of this slaughter are entire
lost generations of human beings who were denied by the law the
right to live. The economic consequences from which we all
suffer today entitlements too costly to afford and too few
wage earners to pay for them are directly attributable to the
absence of population growth.

I am not arguing in favor of entitlements. The Constitution does
not authorize the federal government to provide them. But when
FDR and LBJ concocted their entitlement schemes in order to
build permanent dependence on the Democratic party, they
understood population growth. Their understanding, too, was
slaughtered by abortion. A society that prefers death to life
not only cannot prosper; it cannot survive. Soon 40 percent of
federal tax revenues will be dedicated to interest on the
federal debt, and most of that borrowing has been to pay for
entitlements. We are headed for a cliff.

So are babies in the womb. But isn t a baby in a womb a person?
Of course a baby in a womb is a person. A baby is produced by
the physical interaction of two human parents, and every unborn
baby possesses a fully actualizable human genome: all the
material necessary to grow to adulthood and to exist
independently outside the womb.

What about rape? Rape is among the more horrific violations of
human dignity imaginable. It is a crime committed by the male,
not the female and certainly not by the child it might
produce. When rape results in pregnancy, the baby has the same
right to life as any child born by mutually loving parents. Only
the Nazis would execute a child for the crimes of his or her
father.

Every abortion ends the life of an innocent unborn human being.
When politicians in both parties claim to be pro-life but favor
abortions because of the criminal behavior of the father, as in
rape or incest, they are politically rejecting that hard truth.
What other violations of the natural law will they condone for
political expedience?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of
New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.
He is the author of It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the
Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom (Thomas
Nelson, 2011).

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/22/akin-absurdity-
aside-rape-never-justifies-abortion/

Why am I not surprised?

TMT

TMT

LennyWennyboBenny, dearie, only a rapist feels that a woman must
gestate a rapist's baby, because forced gestation is just an extreme
form of rape.

I am very sorry that your mother didn't abort.

How white of you to agree to adopt the child.

 Right?

Gunner

  One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not
agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my
earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure
- and in some cases I have - that any man who offers violence to his
fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.

      - Jeff Cooper

 Rape, Abortion, and the Moral High Ground

Posted by Aaron Gardner (Diary)

Monday, August 20th at 6:00PM EDT

Recently, a long term friend and I got into a discussion about
abortion over a few glasses of scotch. The debate devolved quickly
into an outright fight. I held firm in the position that abortion was
either a form of murder, and was therefore wrong in all instances
where the physical life of the mother wasn’t threatened, or it wasn’t.
The friend insisted that there must be exceptions in instances of rape
or incest.

What really angered me in this exchange was the faultiness of his
logic and his insistence that I was in error because I was allowing my
faith to dictate my political opinion on the matter. First, the logic
he employed in his defense was that I could never understand the
circumstances of a woman impregnated due to rape. I reject this flat
out because it assumes that I am incapable of being empathetic to the
situation unless I allow for the premeditated murder of an innocent.
His counter to my claim the child was innocent was to claim the child
is, by nature of the act in which it was conceived, a “bad seed”, a
claim I find highly ironic coming from someone who rejects the moral
arguments against abortion.

I attempted to demonstrate the faultiness of his argument by arguing
that he, as a white man, could never understand the plight of a black
man, or an illegal alien, and therefore he should never argue against
reparations or amnesty. Of course it would be absurd, and harmful to
society in the whole, to pair down what issues one may opine on based
on gender, race, or ethnicity, yet when it comes to abortion many have
no problem cozying up to this illogical and balkanizing form of
argumentation.

Even though I know that these are direct parallels to his logic, he
refused to acknowledge the fact and attempted to paint me as being
nothing but a Jesus zombie, simply parroting dogma rather than having
struggled with the legal and logical aspects of abortion in America.

When he realized that I would not relent, he went into a long diatribe
about how I had changed since I started attending church regularly
again, something I have been doing for all but two years of the time
he has known me. The end of the evening came when I finally said to
him that if he is so offended by my faith, maybe we should cease being
friends.

I am sharing this experience in light of the recent gaffe by Rep. Akin
because I believe his gaffe is a byproduct of an environment in
politics that encourages us to be offended by, if not outright hostile
to, positions based on Judeo-Christian morality.

Social Conservatives are often encouraged to soften their tones, to
refer to objective science when arguing issues of morality, as a way
to skirt past the objections of those who get an icky feeling in there
stomach when God enters the discussion. Many Christians are familiar
with that icky feeling, typically we refer to it as the Holy Spirit
convicting us, but I digress.

As a movement, we do ourselves a disservice when we reach for
quasi-scientific arguments in favor of our moral positions. The honest
truth is that we fail because we are scared to stand on the principle
itself and open ourselves to attacks and gaffes as Akin did.

We allow people like President Obama to capture the moral high ground
when he says “Rape is rape.”

“Rape is rape, and the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying
and slicing up what types of rape we’re talking about doesn’t make
sense to the American people, and certainly doesn’t make sense to me.”

I appreciate the clarity that Obama provides here, and I say that only
half mockingly. You see, I also believe murder is murder, and parsing
and qualifying and slicing up what types of murder we are talking
about doesn’t make sense to the American people, and certainly doesn’t
make sense to me. The left and President Obama parse, qualify, and
slice up what types of abortions are murder and which ones are
legitimate ways of relieving a “burden” with nary a peep coming from
the media.

And they get away with this largely because we are told not to stand
up for our own moral principles. We are condemned by our opponents and
friends alike when we mention that there are areas that are strictly
black and white, allowing for no grey.

This shouldn’t be taken as an excuse to act like a cold hearted
hardliner either. Many times there is an opportunity to make an
emotional connection while making a logical argument. The case of
abortions due to rape is an example where the emotional connection
would prove fruitful.

To that end, I will go back to the story I shared at the beginning of
this post.

A few days after the argument with my friend I went to talk to my
mother about the entire incident. My mother is politically active and
also has a lifetime of experience as a nurse. Unbeknownst to me, in my
almost 36 years of existence, my mother was the product of a rape.

My mother has been responsible for saving countless number of lives in
her 30 year career as a nurse. She worked mid shifts in the Maricopa
County Hospital Emergency Room. She worked in the NICU in the same
hospital. She worked as a crew member nurse on a flight for life
helicopter at various points in her career. Today she works as a
hospice nurse comforting those waiting on the inevitable.

This woman, my mother, has dedicated her entire adult life to saving
others. To my friend, she was a “bad seed” whose life should have been
snuffed out before even beginning, all because her father was
incapable of controlling the lust that lived within him.

I am sure my friend never even considered the possible lives that
would be lost if my mother had been aborted. In fact, he couldn’t have
because he didn’t know my mother was the product of a rape.

God has a funny way of reaffirming our faith. In my case he used a
friend accusing me of being controlled by my faith to show me how I
have grown in my faith and further caused information to be revealed
to me that reaffirmed why I am pro-life.

The bottom line is this: If Barack Obama, Claire McCaskill, and the
majority of the Democratic Party had their druthers, my mother would
have been killed in the womb. The people my mother saved would have
missed out on the care she provided. If exceptions for rape would have
been in place in 1955, I may have never existed.

Never the less, President Obama will be praised for wanting my mother
dead, all because we have created an environment where morality isn’t
in itself worthy of being defended. Not to mention life.

  One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not
agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my
earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure
- and in some cases I have - that any man who offers violence to his
fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.

      - Jeff Cooper

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

"The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s
absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every
woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute
dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the
fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother’s womb because the mother
consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother’s
freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not
want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic
“invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel
this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as
“murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted
invader from the mother’s body. Any laws restricting or prohibiting
abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.

     It has been objected that since the mother originally consented
to the conception, the mother has therefore “contracted” its status
with the fetus, and may not “violate” that “contract” by having an
abortion. There are many problems with this doctrine, however. In the
first place, as we shall see further below, a mere promise is not an
enforceable contract: contracts are only properly enforceable if their
violation involves implicit theft, and clearly no such consideration
can apply here. Secondly, there is obviously no “contract” here, since
the fetus (fertilized ovum?) can hardly be considered a voluntarily
and consciously contracting entity. And thirdly as we have seen above,
a crucial point in libertarian theory is the inalienability of the
will, and therefore the impermissibility of enforcing voluntary slave
contracts. Even if this had been a “contract,” then, it could not be
enforced because a mother’s will is inalienable, and she cannot
legitimately be enslaved into carrying and having a baby against her
will.

     Another argument of the anti-abortionists is that the fetus is a
living human being, and is therefore entitled to all of the rights of
human beings. Very good; let us concede, for purposes of the
discussion, that fetuses are human beings—or, more broadly, potential
human beings—and are therefore entitled to full human rights. But what
humans, we may ask, have the right to be coercive parasites within the
body of an unwilling human host? Clearly no born humans have such a
right, and therefore, a fortiori, the fetus can have no such right
either.

     The anti-abortionists generally couch the preceding argument in
terms of the fetus’s, as well as the born human’s, “right to life.” We
have not used this concept hi this volume because of its ambiguity,
and because any proper rights implied by its advocates are included in
the concept of the “right to self-ownership”—the right to have one’s
person free from aggression. Even Professor Judith Thomson, who, in
her discussion of the abortion question, attempts inconsistently to
retain the concept of “right to life” along with the right to own
one’s own body, lucidly demonstrates the pitfalls and errors of the
“right to life” doctrine:

In some views, having a right to life includes having a right to be
given at least the bare minimum one needs for continued life. But
suppose that what in fact is the bare minimum a man needs for
continued life is something he has no right at all to be given? If I
am sick unto death, and the only thing that will save my life is the
touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand on my fevered brow, then all the
same, I have no right to be given the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand
on my fevered brow. It would be frightfully nice of him to fly in from
the West Coast to provide it. . . . But I have no right at all against
anybody that he should do this for me.

     In short, it is impermissible to interpret the term “right to
life,” to give one an enforceable claim to the action of someone else
to sustain that life. In our terminology, such a claim would be an
impermissible violation of the other person’s right of self-ownership.
Or, as Professor Thomson cogently puts it, “having a right to life
does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a
right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body—even if one
needs it for life itself.”"

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

   Of course, you're making the false claim that a zygote is a human
being. A poor little innocent 'baby'. Aaaahhhh.. so cute.....

   BTW, human females naturally abort fetuses every day. It's called
miscarriage.

  "There are about 4.4 million confirmed pregnancies in the U.S. every
year.

      900,000 to 1 million of those end in pregnancy losses EVERY
year.

      More than 500,000 pregnancies each year end in miscarriage
(occurring during the first 20 weeks).

      Approximately 26,000 end in stillbirth(considered stillbirth
after 20 weeks)

      Approximately 19,000 end in infant death during the first month.

      Approximately 39,000 end in infant death during the first year.

      Approximately 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage; some
estimates are as high as 1 in 3. If you include loss that occurs
before a positive pregnancy test, some estimate that 40% of all
conceptions result in loss.

      Approximately 75% of all miscarriages occur in the first
trimester.

      An estimated 80% of all miscarriages are single miscarriages.
The vast majority of women suffering one miscarriage can expect to
have a normal pregnancy next time.

      An estimated 19% of the adult population has experienced the
death of a child (this includes miscarriages through adult-aged
children)."

source   http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm

   Looks like god doesn't give a shit about unborn 'babies'.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

Gunner

      - Jeff Cooper

fe tus  (fts)
n. pl. fe tus es
1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic
structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after
conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier
embryo.
[Middle English, from Latin ftus, offspring; see dh(i)- in
Indo-European roots.]

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
fetus, foetus [?fi?t?s]
n pl -tuses
(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) the embryo of a mammal
in the later stages of development, when it shows all the main
recognizable features of the mature animal, esp a human embryo from
the end of the second month of pregnancy until birth Compare embryo
[2]
[from Latin: offspring, brood]

Collins English Dictionary Complete and Unabridged HarperCollins
Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
fetus  (fts)
The unborn offspring of a mammal at the later stages of its
development, especially a human from eight weeks after fertilization
to its birth. In a fetus, all major body organs are present.
fetal adjective

The American Heritage Science Dictionary Copyright 2005 by Houghton
Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights
reserved.
fetus - A human embryo starts to be called a fetus at nine weeks.
See also related terms for months.
**

Trying to redefine it as something besides a very young human child is
simply gut level Leftwing buffoonery.

Gunner

  One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not
agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my
earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure
- and in some cases I have - that any man who offers violence to his
fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.

      - Jeff Cooper

Quite an ignoramus you turned out to be.

You vote Democrat...dont you?

Gunner

      - Jeff Cooper