PDA

View Full Version : Abortion, from A Spiritual Perspective



Milesian
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 08:41 PM
IN FOCUSING ON THE SUBJECT OF ABORTION, much has been contended from a medical and social perspective. But when we pull the lid off and look at abortion from a spiritual perspective, the implications are far more profound and staggering.

The Bible tells us: "Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12).

Our enemy in fighting abortion is not the abortionist, the courts or those who are advocating for abortion rights. Our enemy is the one who was a murderer from the beginning - Satan and the spiritual forces under his command.

Throughout history, certain pagan cultures have sacrificed human infants to demons as a part of a complicated ritual in return for favors asked of them.

Few of those involved in abortion today are consciously engaging in child sacrifice, although that is precisely what abortion is - the sacrifice of a human life for the convenience or needs of others. In that respect, it is no less barbaric than the human sacrifice practiced to ensure, for example, a successful harvest. But beyond this, there is a spiritual, satanically inspired dimension that gives frightening realism to abortion's identification with literal child sacrifice.

The Bible supports this idea as often we see a particular action viewed by God as something of a more overtly occultic nature. Rebellion is called witchcraft; immorality is likened to idolatry; hatred is a kin to murder - thus abortion is child sacrifice.


The Origins of Child Sacrifice

To discover the origins of child sacrifice we can examine a key passage of scripture. Genesis 19 gives the account of Lot and his daughters, some of the early ancestors of mankind: "And Lot went up from Zoar and stayed in the mountains and his two daughters with him." Then the first born said to the younger, "Our father is old and there is not a man on earth to come into us after the manner of the earth."

Now it so happens that there were men available just a few miles away geographically. But they meant something different. The "earth" is throughout scripture a symbol of a fallen unregenerate realm. James tells us that there is a wisdom from above that is "pure and peaceable," but that there is a wisdom from below which is "earthly, natural and demonic" (James 3:15,17). In the same way that many modern feminists want men purely on their own terms, Lot's daughters wanted a man in this "manner of the earth."

"So they made their father drink wine that night and laid with him" (Genesis 19:29-38). This was a gross act of rebellion against both their father and God. As a result both daughters had children. The oldest daughter's son was named Moab. His descendents, the Moabites, ultimately became an idolatrousnation that was one of the primary enemies of God's people - Israel.

The youngest daughter's son - Ben Ammi - became the father of the sons of Ammon. 1 Kings 11:7 calls Molech "the detestable idol of the Ammonites." The name Molech in Hebrew means: "to ascend the throne" or, in other words, to usurp God's authority. Leviticus 20:2 tells us that Molech worship involved the sacrifice of one's offspring. While the Ammonites primarily sacrificed post-natal children, it is no coincidence that it is the Ammonites that God condemns in the book of Amos for a particular form of blood-thirstiness:

"For three transgressions of the sons of Ammon, and for four, will I not revoke its punishment, because they have ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead in order to enlarge their borders" (Amos 1:13).

To "enlarge one's borders" is a biblical metaphor applied not just to land, but to extend the boundaries of acceptable human conduct. How common this is still today as we hear cries of - "It's my choice" and - "Keep your religion out of my life."


Baal and Molech Worship

"And they built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech" (Jeremiah 32:35).

"They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons as offering to Baal" (Jeremiah 19:5).

Here the Bible implies what modern archaeologists and anthropologists have recently discovered: that Molech and Baal represent the same pagan god. The wife of Baal is Asherah and the wife of Molech is Ashteroth. Asherah and Ashteroth represent the same fertility goddess. This demon was known to the Greeks as Aphrodite; to the Egyptians as Isis; and to the Phoenicians as Tanet.

The ancient city of Carthage was the capital of the Phoenician empire. Their civilization was advanced culturally and highly educated. But recent archaeological expeditions have revealed its most notable feature - the high incidence of child sacrifice. Archaeological relics have been uncovered, such as the altars on which children were sacrificed and stone markers, which marked the burial place of the remains. Stone carvings on the markers depict children who were sacrificed. Clay jars were used to hold the remains. Entire burial grounds full of these slaughtered children have been uncovered.

As barbaric as this sounds, we must remember that this is precisely what we do through abortion. With one obvious exception - today we don't honor or bury the children we kill.

Archaeologists have established that the primary deity that they children were sacrificed to was the goddess Tanet, the name being a regional representation of the more universal Ashteroth.

The typical rationalist would attribute these rites to superstition and would suggest that science and intellectual advancement would cause this type of unfortunate behavior to lessen and finally cease. But archaeologists have discovered that over Carthage's history, the incident of child sacrifice, even in the face of considerable intellectual advances, actually increased until it suddenly stopped.

And how did it stop? When God judged Carthage. Roman armies invaded and suddenly destroyed the entire civilization. The stark ruins of Carthage are a testimony that God is not mocked. We have to ask ourselves: How far are we from a judgment for our own abortion holocaust?


17th Century France

Another incident occurred some three hundred years ago in France. Seventeenth century France - while not as egalitarian - was still very much like western society today. There was substantial material wealth and a large leisure class obsessed with entertainment and sensual pursuits. There was great sophistication in the arts and a dramatic decline in morality. In the 18th century, the age's philosopher would be Voltaire who provided the underpinning for the "Age of Reason." Its philosophy was a reworking of the old idea that man doesn't need God, but through his own efforts, now coupled with science, he can save himself.

The king was Louis XIV who had a painting done depicting himself as a god with lightning bolts clenched in his hand. This is the essence of secular humanism: man trying to be God. Like many of the aristocrats of his time Louis was sexually promiscuous. One of his mistresses, Madame de Montespan, was so highly favored of Louis that many considered her the unofficial queen of France.

During her reign a disturbing thing began to take place. Many male members of Louis' court began dying for no discernible reason. In order to investigate what appeared to be murders, Louis employed a detective, Gabriel de La Reynie, the Lieutenant General of the police in Versaille. His inquiries led to a witch named la Voisin who provided the poisons that were responsible for the deaths. This investigation also uncovered a network of abortion services connected with satanic rituals. The following is the testimony of la Voisin's daughter at the subsequent trial:

"At one of Madame de Montespan's masses, I saw my mother bring an infant, obviously premature, and place it over a basin over which its throat was slit, and its blood drained into the chalice."

Note that the child was premature, obviously the victim of abortion. Then the cup filled with the baby's blood was lifted up to heaven and this invocation was given: "Hail Ashteroth and Asmodeus, Princes of friendship, I conjure you to accept the sacrifice of this child in return for the favors asked of you."

Ashteroth was the goddess wife of Molech. Asmodeus is a transliteration of the Hebrew name for a demon that is normally associated with lust. Aborted children were being sacrificed in a satanic ritual designed to empower the practitioners.

One might ask: why aborted prenatal children? For one thing, it is easier to mistreat or abuse someone who doesn't look just like us. This is the root of racial prejudice as well as the view that unborn children are somehow less human than ourselves. Second, since the distinction from fetus to infant relative to their humanity is in fact meaningless, the sacrifice of a fetal child serves the same purpose as the sacrifice of a post-natal child or an adult.


Modern Feminism

Today we have given the demons of human sacrifice new names: "Career" -"Convenience" - "Money" - "Lust" - "Self." But beyond this, we have come full circle; today's rationalism has given way to a new feminist spirituality that honors these same demons actually calling them by their proper biblical and historical names. Is it just a coincidence that the hottest sub-movement within the feminist movement that began to emerge just after the Roe v. Wade decision is goddess worship? One of the primary deities that is being worshipped is Aphrodite - the goddess of child sacrifice.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, is perhaps the best 20th century example of the destructive power of spiritual deception. That she was wallowing in deception can be seen in a quote from a book written by an admirer: "She had tried to dispel depression by sex, travel, Rosicrucianism (a cult), numerology, now she tried a new panacea - astrology." Sanger was a confirmed adulteress who consistently and publicly supported a "woman's right to destroy." She became deeply involved with Havelock Ellis, a modern day false prophet who advocated a variety of bizarre sex practices supposing them to be the keys to spiritual enlightenment and power. For Margaret Sanger and her militantly (even religiously) promiscuous lifestyle, abortion became a necessary backup for contraceptive failure.

A more recent example can be found in a newsletter published by the National Abortion Federation. It provides an account of the 1985 national convention. One of the speakers was Carter Heyward, an ordained Episcopal priest who has been active for many years in the feminist movement. This quote was taken from her address: "If women were in charge, abortion would be a sacrament, an occasion of deep and serious and sacred meaning."

That an ordained leader of a church that supposedly represents Jesus to the world could describe child sacrifice as a sacrament or holy rite of the church without facing excommunication is a staggering illustration of the collective deception we are facing as a nation.

Several other examples are found in the December 1985 issue of Ms. magazine - the undisputed leader of feminist publications. This particular issue was completely dedicated to exploring the new emerging spirituality in modern feminism. Much space was given to Goddess worship or adulation of the various demons associated with child sacrifice (including Isis and Aphrodite). The central article in this issue of Ms. is filled with testimonies showing the gross deception that has already taken captive much of our nation - men and women alike.

"The feminist spirituality movement began to emerge in the mid-1970s and has become one of the largest submovements within feminism. It's amorphous, blending in a surprisingly smooth amalgam radical feminism, pacifism, witchcraft, Eastern mysticism, goddess worship, animism, psychic healing, and a variety of practices normally associated with 'fortune-telling.' It exists nationwide and takes the form of large, daylong workshops, small meditation groups, and even covens that meet to work spells and do rituals under the full moon. But to the women in feminist spirituality, witchcraft had even a more fundamental meaning. It is a woman's religion, vilified by patriarchal Christianity, and now, finally, reclaimed."1

This represents just the tip of the iceberg as we are witnessing an explosion of books, magazines, "how-to" manuals, artwork and the inevitable paraphernalia that accompanies the development of any organized religion. In one of the few instances where they both agree, both Ms. magazine and the Bible label these various permutations of spiritual deception as - "witchcraft."


Battling Witchcraft

Biblically, witchcraft is linked to rebellion - specifically, rebellion against God's authority. This can be heard in the feminist chant: "Not the church, not the state, women must decide our fate!" It is true that the state should have minimal say in deciding anyone's fate - male or female. But the the state's intrusion into a woman's fate in forbidding abortion, is infinitesimally small compared to the abortifier's decision that the unborn child's fate should be death. But the Church, as God's representative in the earth, should assist in deciding the fate of all those who desire to do God's will. The only alternative is to "choose one's own fate" or one's own will. And this is rebellion - the foundation of all witchcraft.

When we consider the word "witchcraft," one Bible personality comes to mind - Jezebel. In 1 Kings 18:19, Elijah the prophet of God mentions Jezebel along with some of the deities we know about. He asks to see "the 450 prophets of Baal and the 400 prophets of Asherah who eat at Jezebel's table." Jezebel represents the corrupting influence of witchcraft.

Jesus spoke to the Church of Thyatira about another Jezebel: "But I have one thing against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel who calls herself a prophetess and she teaches and leads my bond servants astray so that they commit acts of immortality and eat things sacrificed to idols" (Revelation 2:20).

This admonition cuts to the heart of the Church in America. "One of the Religious Left's premier organizations is the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights. RCAR is a hardline supporter of federally funded abortions and the Freedom of Choice Act. RCAR represents groups of liberal Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Brethren, Moravians, Jews, Humanists, and Unitarians."2

Truly, the Church in America and much of the world has become the modern equivalent of the Church of Thyatira. Jezebel has been tolerated and even ordained.

God's command is that we "repent of her deeds" and drive Jezebel out of the Church and from our nation. To help us understand the magnitude of the battle which this represents, the prophet Malachi announces that God will send the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the Lord. 400 years later, Jesus connects John the Baptist with the ministry of Elijah.

The distinguishing feature of both Elijah and John's lives was their boldness in confronting wickedness and their command to repent. Scripture calls this ministry "Preparing the Way of the Lord." In the same way that Elijah confronted the wicked rulers of his time, in the same way that John prepared the way for the advent of Christ, so God's man in the earth, the Church, will prepare the way for the ultimate return of the Lord.

There are many ways in which the Church has been called to "prepare the way" - the most notable being the Great Commission - to go into all the world and preach the gospel. But just as Jezebel was Elijah's greatest challenge, we too, must confront and defeat the forces of witchcraft that have manifested through abortion. And just as Elijah was almost defeated by Jezebel and John was killed by the witchcraft of Herod's wife, we must also realize that this battle is a deadly one. There can be no victory without the radical commitment to fight witchcraft.


Spiritual Warfare

The spiritual pattern which has led us to America's abortion holocaust is thus summarized: the demons gained a foothold in the earth through the incestuous acts of Lot's daughters. Their descendents, the Ammonites, became possessed and worshipped this spirit (identified variously as Molech or Baal) through child sacrifice. The god-goddess pairs of Baal-Asherah and Molech-Ashteroth were worshipped throughout the ancient pagan world as a part of a widespread "Mother Earth" cult. In seventeenth-century France, the goddess resurfaced as Ashteroth. And finally, Ashteroth became Aphrodite and resurfaced in a new 20th century feminist spirituality. And its no coincidence that abortion - today's form of child sacrifice - came right along with it.

It is important today to note the historic rationale of those who in ancient times offered up their own children to idols - that the sacrifice of blood rejuvenated and strengthened the deity to whom it was dedicated at the same time binding him to the offerer of the sacrifice. In other words, when they sacrificed their children to an idol, they became spiritual slaves to the demon it represented. Even more frightening was the effect upon the spirit - greater power was released through the outpouring of innocent blood.

This principle is borne out in scripture. In 2 Kings 3:26,27, one of the descendents of Lot's daughters, the King of Moab, was about to face certain defeat at the hands of the Israelites. To prevent this from happening, he offered up his oldest son as a sacrifice. The fact that it was a burnt offering tells us that it was undoubtedly made to Baal, Molech or Ashteroth. What is sobering is that it worked: the Moabites defeated the Israelites.

The spiritual heritage of the Moabites and the Ammonites is passed down to our own day through abortion. Today the church is fighting against those same spiritual forces for the very survival of our nation. Without all out spiritual warfare, what are our chances of victory when the demons' lust is being gorged on the blood of not just one, but 1.5 million children killed each year?

The land that God chose to bring His people into after their long captivity in Egypt was filled with nations that practiced child sacrifice. And what was his commandment to Israel? "When you cross over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then shall you drive out all the inhabitants of the land before you. And destroy all their molten images and demolish all their high places" (Joshua 33:51,52).

This scripture provides a model for our response to child sacrifice in our era. The Old Testament is not just a collection of stories, but provides temporal examples of what we must accomplish in the spiritual realm. In the same way, for example, that the people of God, Israel, followed a man named Joshua into the promised land, so the Church, spiritual Israel, follows a man named Joshua, or Yeshua (Jesus), into the land of promise. Everything that the Israelites underwent has a direct New Covenant application. In this passage, God commands His people, past and present, to destroy all idolatry.

How do we accomplish this in light of the New Covenant? Should we, like the ancient Israel, begin to attack the individuals responsible for the idolatry? Of course not. "Our battle is not against flesh and blood" (Ephesians 6:12).

In Old Testament times, the Holy Spirit had not yet been given in the way hat we experience Him today. Man had neither the anointing nor the authority to confront the demonic powers directly. In order to defeat the forces of wickedness, their was no recourse except to destroy the people through whom those forces acted.

But with the coming of Jesus, the whole scenario changed. For the first time we see a man directly confronting the spiritual forces of darkness. In Luke 11:20, Jesus even defines this as one of the primary signs that the kingdom of God has come into this world: "But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." At last God's people could direct their efforts to the real problem: the spiritual realm. Instead of destroying his human adversaries, they could begin to love them and work for their salvation.

Jesus expects His Church to manifest the same authority and power as He did during His life on earth as a man. In Matthew 28:18, Jesus said: "All power and authority has been given to me in heaven and earth." He commanded His disciples to go into all the world wrenching it from the control of Satan and his forces.

In John 14:12, Jesus said: "He who believes in Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do, because I go to the Father." In Mark 16:17, He said: "And these signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons."

In Luke 7:28, He makes a clear distinction between the realms of power of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, when He said that of all the Old Covenant prophets, there was none more powerful than John the Baptist, but that now, even the least Christian (this includes even you and me) is greater in power and authority than John.

Immediately after Joshua led Israel into the promised land, they zealously began to obey God's commandment. Often their obedience necessitated the obliteration of entire cities. In the same way, God wants us to be just as committed, just as ruthless as Joshua and his armies in destroying the forces of idolatry on the world. Only now, we are to direct our attention to the real enemy - the spiritual forces of wickedness in heavenly places.


Disobedience of God's People

What ultimately happened to the Israelites? The book of Judges recounts their their initial steps to apostasy. Instead of totally destroying and driving out the Canaanites, they began to enslave them. The result of their disobedience is seen in one of the most tragic passages of scripture: "They did not destroy the peoples as the Lord commanded them, but they mingled with the nations [the unbelieving heathen world] and they learned their practices and served their idols which became a snare to them. They even sacrificed their sons and daughters to devils" (Psalms 106:34-37; Judges 1:28).

Through abortion, we have followed precisely the same slippery slope to destruction. In fact, we are already there. Ezekiel 16:20 gives us even further evidence of our guilt today. "Moreover, you took you sons and daughters which you bore unto me and you sacrificed them to idols to be devoured."

What does the Bible mean by "sons and daughter which you have bore unto me"? The Bible gives us the key. Exodus 13:2 says: "Sanctify unto Me every first born, the first offspring of every womb of the sons of Israel, both of man and beast. It belongs to me." The firstborn was traditionally considered "born unto the Lord."

History and archaeology has shown us that child sacrifice, as with the example of the King of Moab, centered on the first born child. Is it simple irony or coincidence that the majority of children that will face the abortionist's knife in this country are also first born - "set apart for the Lord"?

"You slaughtered my children and offered them up to idols by causing them to pass through the fire. And besides all all your abominations and harlotries, you did not remember the days of your youth when you were naked and bare and squirming in your blood" (Ezekiel 16:21,22).

We would all do well - especially those who are pro-abortion - to remember that we were once naked, bare and dependent on others older than ourselves for the chance to live.

The Israelites chose for the site of their sacrificial rituals, a place called the Valley of the Son of Hinnom. This valley, which still goes by that name today, is just outside of Jerusalem. The Valley of the Son of Hinnom translates into Greek as "Gehenna" - which also the word for hell. It is significant to note that Jesus himself introduced and used this word - one that was fully recognized by the common people of His day as the name of a valley where child sacrifice took place. He used this word to describe the eternal habitation of Satan himself.

In light of this, Jesus' words in Matthew 16:18 become a stirring cry to action for His church to fight abortion: "And upon this rock, I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Gates are not offensive weapons but defensive. The gates of hell are erected to protect Satan's kingdom and to keep the Church out. Jesus' use of the word Gehenna clearly substantiates that there is no greater manifestation of hell on earth than the sacrifice of children.

Today, walls - both spiritual and natural - have been erected to protect this so-called "right." Jesus Christ has called and anointed us to tear down those walls and proclaim deliverance to the captives - to "rescue those who are being taken away to the slaughter" (Proverbs 24:11 TLB).

What will you do, as a child of God, to respond in obedience?


Source: http://www.hoffman-info.com/massacre.html


Notes

1 Karen Lindsey, Ms., December 1985, p.38.
2 Steve Beard, World, May 22, 1993.

Michael A. Hoffman II comments: Some counter-balance should have been inserted in this report regarding false accusations of witchcraft against women such as midwives, the legacy of which continues today in the war of the pharmaceutical companies and some gynecologists against natural, herbal medicine and midwives.

The author also gives the impression that witchcraft was revived in 17th century France. But the case cited was an abuse rather than a trend.

Witchcraft never was extirpated in the whole of western history. Moreover, if we need fix a date for the institutionalization of witchcraft in the Christian West, we should look to 16th century Protestant England where, under Elizabeth I, the sorcerer John Dee achieved state power, founded Freemasonry and built upon the occult edifice of Catholic heretics such as Girodano Bruno and Pico della Mirandola in pursuing a "Christian" kabbalah and an alliance with the black magic practicioner, Rabbi Judah Lowe of Prague.

Sigrun Christianson
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 09:27 PM
I never have been able to take men's opinions on abortion seriously.

Milesian
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 09:31 PM
I never have been able to take men's opinions on abortion seriously.

Why do I find that not difficult to believe :P
What are your views then, Sigrun?

Sigrun Christianson
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 09:36 PM
My view is that what a woman (or a man, for that matter) does with her body and its contents are none of my damn business.

Milesian
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 09:46 PM
My view is that what a woman (or a man, for that matter) does with her body and its contents are none of my damn business.

The problem is that it's not just her body.
There is another person in there too.
the thing she "does with her body" is actually what she is doing with someone else's body, ie. killing it.

Sigrun Christianson
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 09:50 PM
Anything inside her body belongs to her and it is at her discretion what she does with her own body and its contents. I hate to sound so cliche, but if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a right spelled out in every constitution in every country on earth.

Milesian
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 10:33 PM
Anything inside her body belongs to her and it is at her discretion what she does with her own body and its contents. I hate to sound so cliche, but if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a right spelled out in every constitution in every country on earth.


I agree 100% with your last comment. I have no doubt that is true.
However, that doesn't mean that it would be right.
I'm afraid I have to take issue however, with the "Anything inside her body belongs to her and it is at her discretion what she does with her own body and its contents".

If the child had a voice, I doubt it would agree.
There is no precedent to make this claim. It is simply an opinion and unfortunately one which decides life or death for another human being(and in our case, a white child).
The fact is that it is a seperate human being. It has it's on body, it's own brain, it's own heart, it's own nervous system, and although it is dependant on the mother for it's survival, it is still clearly a seperate entity.

I have heard the argument that killing a child inside the womb is different from killing it outside because while a child is inside the womb, it is completely dependant on the mother, therefore in some way this makes it's death in this case acceptable.
However, a child is still dependant on it's mother for some time after birth for survival as well.
It cannot clean, clothe of feed itself. It still needs almost everything done for it and would still die in isolation.

Ultimately, I believe the right to life is the most fundamental right of all.
Without the Right to Life, what basis is there for any other right? (including the right of a woman to choose what to do with her body).

My problem with advocating abortion is that for those who do so, it is the one thing they would not have had their own parents choose for them

Mac Seafraidh
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 10:51 PM
I am not for or against abortion. It is not an issue to me.

Sigrun Christianson
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 10:58 PM
The child doesn't have a voice and I do have legal precedent on my side - abortion is legal in my country. That is precedent. The rights of the mother supersede the rights of the unborn in the vast majority of cases, and rightly so in my opinion. I don't think the right to life is most valuable when that life doesn't include liberty and privacy and I don't think that all life, simply because it is alive, is valuable. I guess that is the main difference between me and most people.

Anyway, like I stated, I don't like to talk to men about abortion - it s something you'll never have to deal with.

Milesian
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 11:13 PM
I think we disagree at a very fundamental level then.
I would not like my child living with a death sentence over it's head every day.
I cannot forsee our race increasing it's numbers when mothers kill their own children.

But if you do not wish to discuss this then I will honour your wish
That's 1-1 each then ;) j/k

Sigrun Christianson
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 11:23 PM
Hehe.. no, we can continue if you like, I just don't see the point. We do disagree at a level so fundamental that I don't see a reconciliation at any juncture. We think and operate off of different premises at the most basic level.

Milesian
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 11:32 PM
Yes, that is true Sigrun. and we both acknowledge that, therefore nothing is likely to be achieved in further discussion other than irritaing each other, and we've had our fun quota for tonight ;)

I will bury the War-Hatchet with you then :D

Sigrun Christianson
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 11:37 PM
War? I was never at war. That is how a heathen plays nice. :viking

;)

Stríbog
Monday, November 3rd, 2003, 04:11 AM
Generally the phrase is spelled "Massacre of Innocents."

friedrich braun
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 04:41 AM
My view is that what a woman (or a man, for that matter) does with her body and its contents are none of my damn business.

With no limits at all? 2nd, 3rd trimester? Any time? Does that sound reasonable? The father should have absolutely no say? Why not? It's also his kid, no?

cosmocreator
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 07:00 AM
With no limits at all? 2nd, 3rd trimester? Any time? Does that sound reasonable? The father should have absolutely no say? Why not? It's also his kid, no?


That's a good point. What about an hour before delivery -- the mother changes her mind about having the baby? Since it's not yet born, it must still belong to the mother to do as she likes with it. No?

Johnny Reb
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 07:04 AM
The following article is rather long but very interesting and pertinent to this discussion. It comes from the American Conservative magazine, and can be found at this link, as well as below. http://www.amconmag.com/11_3_03/article1.html

And Sigrun, I'm suprised that somebody with the racialist beliefs that you have would support the death of MILLIONS of White babies.

Johnny Reb
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 07:05 AM
A Woman’s Right to Change Her Mind


The plaintiffs in Roe and Doe draft a new challenge to the
cases that made them famous.


By Howard Sutherland

Abortion is the most polarizing issue in America. It has been for 30 years, since the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, found that women had a constitutional right to abortion. The Court’s rationales were not rooted in anything in the Constitution, yet the decisions pushed aside states’ abortion laws, many over a century old. Protected from politics, abortion rights became a lighting rod, a talisman of feminists, and an abomination to abortion opponents. U.S. Senators have made judicial nominees’ views of Roe v. Wade a de facto Test Act. It is strange that a novel legal challenge to something so controversial, and a compelling human-interest story, has attracted so little media coverage. Do our opinion-shapers fear that this challenge may succeed?

Allan E. Parker Jr. is a human-rights lawyer in Texas. He founded and runs The Justice Foundation in San Antonio. Parker believes Doe and Roe were wrongly decided and that there is a promising way to challenge them using the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FCRP) that govern federal trials. Parker’s approach differs from previous challenges in not relying primarily on arguments about the right to life of unborn children and constitutional errors in the decisions. Those arguments are true—and tried. No majority of justices has heeded them, even in a challenge to the flagrant barbarism of partial-birth abortion. Something different is needed, that “gives the Supreme Court a graceful way out of the problem it is in” over abortion, as Parker says. Rule 60 of the FRCP and Parker’s plaintiffs may be that something.

Rule 60 provides that “on motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party … from a final judgment … for the following reasons: … it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application.” The original plaintiff may return to court to ask that a judgment be reversed if it is now unjust. There is no statute of limitations.

To bring Rule 60 motions challenging Roe and Doe, Parker needed Roe and Doe. Thirty years later, they had to be still alive, competent, and willing to overturn the decisions that created abortion on demand. Unlikely, one would think, yet both Roe and Doe are available, pro-life, and very willing to sue. Jane Roe is Norma McCorvey; Mary Doe is Sandra Cano. Represented by Parker, McCorvey has sued in the Dallas federal court where Roe began, and Cano is suing in the Atlanta federal court where Doe started. The goal is to get either case (ideally both) back before the Supreme Court.

McCorvey and Cano have similar stories. Young, poor, and poorly educated, they were used, first by the men in their lives, then by feminist lawyers looking for plaintiffs to challenge abortion laws.

McCorvey’s Rule 60 affidavit tells how, pregnant and homeless in 1969, she saw an adoption lawyer who referred her to two young lawyers, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee. Over pitchers of beer they talked McCorvey into being their plaintiff to challenge Texas’s abortion law. She was ideal: “You’re white. You’re young, pregnant, and you want an abortion.” In fact, McCorvey wasn’t sure what an abortion was and in the end never had one. She signed her affidavit unread.

There was no evidence at trial about the reality of abortion or its effects on women. Following Roe v. Wade, McCorvey’s life was a fog of drink, drugs, despair, and work in abortion clinics, punctuated by suicide attempts. What she saw in those clinics fed a growing remorse about her role in making abortion common. Nevertheless, she was a pro-choice heroine, until she came to Christianity in 1995 through an old adversary, Operation Rescue’s Rev. Flip Benham. In 1998, McCorvey was received into the Catholic Church. She is a greater force in the pro-life movement than she ever was for the other side—with her own organization, Roe No More Ministries and an autobiography, Won by Love.

Sandra Cano’s Rule 60 affidavit says that she never wanted an abortion. In 1970, 22, pregnant with her fourth child, and abandoned by her husband, Cano sought a legal-aid divorce. Her lawyer, Margie Pitts Hames, gave her some papers, which Cano did not read, thinking they were for a divorce. They were an affidavit saying she wanted an abortion and was suing to overturn Georgia’s abortion law. Cano only suspected what she had really signed when her mother and Hames tried to take her for an abortion. Cano refused and eventually fled to Oklahoma to avoid them. Back in Atlanta, she appeared at trial but did not testify. Like Norma McCorvey, Sandra Cano never had an abortion. In 1998, angry and feeling used, Cano sued to unseal the trial records. Hames opposed her, but Cano prevailed. Those records stated, falsely, that Cano had applied for an abortion and was turned down, then sued the state of Georgia. They contained a fictitious account of Cano’s petitioning a nine-doctor abortion panel. Cano believes that abortion is not in any mother’s interest but a false solution imposed on mothers by others.

Rule 60 sets a high, but not impossible, standard. The Supreme Court’s test is whether a significant change in factual conditions or the law since the original decision makes continued application of the judgment unjust. Parker’s Rule 60 motions argue that both the facts and the law have changed so much since 1973 that it is unjust to continue to apply Doe and Roe.

On the facts, Doe and Roe assumed that what is aborted is not a human being and that abortion does not harm women. The Supreme Court asserted that no one can determine when life begins, justifying abortion on demand early in pregnancy. Noting that the Constitution would require that the uncertainty be resolved in favor of life, Parker argues, with a battery of medical support, that abundant new DNA evidence shows that a unique human life begins at conception.

The Court considered no evidence of the effects of abortion on women. Parker offers 5,565 pages of affidavits from over 1,000 women attesting to the harm they have suffered in body, mind, and spirit after aborting their children. Their affidavits are painful reading and make a strong case that women who abort can suffer devastating psychological and physical trauma. The Supreme Court presumed a professional doctor-patient relationship. The women’s affidavits show that very rarely happens in abortion. Mothers usually decide to abort under pressure from others, with no professional advice other than the clinic’s own pressure to abort.

On the law, subsequent Supreme Court cases, while upholding Doe and Roe, have weakened their holding that abortion is a “fundamental right.” More important, in 1997’s Washington v. Glucksberg, the Court defined a constitutionally protected fundamental right: it must find a cognizable basis in the Constitution’s language or design and be so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental. A criminal offense for most of our history, abortion would seem not to qualify.

Most important, the Supreme Court’s rationale that women need abortion to avoid unwanted motherhood has been undermined by the passage of “Baby Moses” laws. Starting with Texas, 41 states, including Georgia, have recently passed laws allowing a mother to relinquish her baby for adoption or foster care for any reason soon after birth. The state guarantees the child’s care until age 18. Baby Moses laws, Parker argues, provide mothers the freedom the Court thought it was giving them through the more drastic expedient of abortion. They also offer state solutions to the problem, in keeping with the Supreme Court’s recently renewed emphasis on federalism.

Parker’s challenge to Doe v. Bolton as well as Roe is wise. The Georgia statute that Doe overturned was more permissive than the Texas law Roe struck down. Unlike Roe’s convoluted trimester scheme, Doe allows abortions at any time in a pregnancy. Late pregnancies may be aborted on a single doctor’s judgment that continuing the pregnancy would injure the mother’s health (health, undefined, is a catch-all). Doe, not Roe, is the father of partial-birth abortion and the more important case to overturn.

Although Judge David Godbey in Dallas, a George W. Bush appointee, dismissed the Roe challenge immediately, saying “it’s too late” to reconsider Roe, an appeal is pending before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, several of whose judges might view the Rule 60 motion favorably. The challenge to Doe is before Judge Owen Forrester in Atlanta. Forrester, a Reagan appointee, upheld Georgia’s prohibition of partial-birth abortion. One intriguing possibility is that the two cases might lead to a split in the federal circuit courts, which the Supreme Court would have to resolve. The Court would then have to reconsider Roe and Doe. Judge Godbey notwithstanding, it is never too late to reconsider bad precedent and return to the Constitution. If it were, Dred Scott would still be the law of the land.
________________________________________ _________

Howard Sutherland is an attorney in New York City.

Scáthach
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 07:21 PM
I'm anti abortion for 98% of cases - in some instances of rape/incest etc while the baby is not to blame in the instance of rape for instance, I still understand the situation is not black and white and if put in the that situation there's no saying what I'd do.
Abortion is murder, there's really no way out of that.

www.truthtv.org is an excellent anti abortion site.

Sigrun Christianson
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 08:28 PM
No, I don't support abortion in the late second or last trimester unless the mother's health is at risk and unless the child is deformed. I don't know where the moral cut-off is, honestly. I don't have all the answers nor even most of them, but the idea that you people or anyone can force me to have a child I do not want to have is not acceptable. I control my body and I make the decisions that affect my life.

As far as father's rights go, well, I just don't think they have any until the child is born. The child is, from the time of conception and for eternity, mine and I am primarily responsible for him. As long as he resides in my body, I am soley responsible for him - me and no one else. Along with that sole responsibility comes sole power.

My racial views, Johnny Reb, are perfectly in line with my stance on abortion. There is no conflict. I don't believe that all life has value simply because it lives and I don't believe that all life is equally valuable. If I did, I probably wouldn't be a racialist. ;)

Like I stated in the capital punishment thread, this type of issue is not easy and it's not easy for me to come to a simple conclusion about it. I'm not pro-abortion, mind you, I'd be happier and feel much better if "accidental" pregnancies never occured at all, and when/if they did, that the parents would be happy about it or at least have the child and give it to a nice family who wants and can't have a child. However, it's not my call. I mind my own business and only get involved in the business of others when I absolutely feel it necessary in order to protect my own liberty and the liberty of others - the unborn included. But, we all must decide what is more important to us: the liberty of a mother or the the liberty of a not-yet born person residing inside her. The rights of the mother (a born, legal person) supersede the rights of the unborn, in my opinion.

If any of you can convince me otherwise, I totally welcome it, but seeing as how I've been torn by and arguing this point for most of my life, with people much more skilled in this issue/debate than y'all (no offense), I doubt it. I'm opend-minded, though. :)

I also think that too much time is spent combating the symptom (abortion) rather than the cause. If we did more about the problem of "accidental" pregnancies, we'd be much better off as a society.