On Hanging Out With Anti-Abortion Extremists in Wichita

When this guy says "In the movement," doesn't he really mean "In the echo chamber"?

Since when do women, by getting pregnant, become wards of the state? These fascists would have us believe that women forfeit their rights because they have been blessed with some dope's precious bodily fluids and must now submit to their husband, the state itself.

I'm sure these Brownshirts can find that in their Bibles, too.

Genesis 38:24. Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at the time. This was positive proof that she was sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law, Judah, ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar's fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.

Exodus 21:22-24. If two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the fetus is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon her, and not the fetus.

Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, sums up the passage as:

"Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence-it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death."

Halacha (Jewish Law) does define when a fetus becomes a nephesh (person), a full-fledged human being, when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a "partial-life". The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life, it gains full human status after birth only.

Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus. Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health. With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women. Each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law.

The Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot 69b) states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born. Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and the Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nephesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression, "the thigh of its mother," i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body.

This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic Law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus. If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman is killed, the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.

There are two additional passages in the Talmud which shed some light on abortion. They imply that the fetus is considered part of its mother: One section states that if a man purchases a cow that is found to be pregnant, then he is owner of both the cow and the fetus. Another section states that if a pregnant woman converts to Judaism, that her conversion also applies to her fetus.

Some Jewish authorities have ruled in specific cases. one case involved a woman who becomes pregnant while nursing a child. Her milk supply would dry up. If the child is allergic to all other forms of nutrition except mother's milk, then it would starve. An abortion would be permitted in this case, a potential person, would be justified to save the life of the child, an actual person.

Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism are formally opposed to government regulation of abortion. They feel that the decision should rest with the woman, her husband, her doctor and her clergyperson. Some Orthodox authorities agree with this stance. Polls have found up to 90% of American Jews supporting abortion rights.

The New Testament is more permissive than the Old. Paul claims Jesus said to him three times, "my grace is sufficient for thee" (II Corinthians 12:8-9), and Christians misinterpret this verse to mean they're free to do as they please--ignoring Jesus' teachings and all of Paul's other moral instructions altogether. They ignore the New Testament as a whole, and focus only on a single verse from one of Paul's epistles to justify their hedonism.

Can you imagine pro-choice Christians telling pro-lifers, "We don't have to protect unborn children. That's 'good works.' We don't have to 'work' for our salvation." ?

Or how about a pro-choice Christian minister telling his flock, "You don't have to protect unborn children. That's 'good works.' You don't have to 'work' for your salvation. Paul says Jesus told him three times, 'my grace is sufficient for thee.' Abortion, abortion, abortion. You don't have to protect unborn children..." ?

We really live in a secular society. Secular arguments are religiously neutral and thus applicable to everyone, including atheists and agnostics. The pro-life movement ALREADY HAS the support of organized religion. Instead of preaching to the choir, i.e., wasting time with religion, pro-lifers should focus on prenatal development, DNA, RNA, etc. to make their case to mainstream secular society.

The pro-life movement desperately needs religious diversity. It's already stereotyped as being predominately Christian (Catholic, fundamentalist, born again, etc.) and will need to become completely secular as it attempts to convince the courts, legislatures, universities, philosophers, ethicists, etc. that human zygotes and embryos should be regarded as legal persons.

Talk about religious hypocrites. We sure don't have to worry about foreign terrorists, we have our own home grown lurking in the dark, which is much worse. All women have a right to decide independently in all matters related to reproduction, including the issue of abortion. UN Human Rights Watch argues that "the denial of a pregnant woman's right to make an independent decision regarding abortion violates or poses a threat to a wide range of human rights” and states that where women's access to safe and legal abortion services are restricted, the following human rights may be at risk: the right to life, the right to health (or health care), right to freedom from discrimination, right to security of person, the right to liberty, the right to privacy, the right to information, the right to be free from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment , the right to decide the number and spacing of children (reproductive rights), the right to freedom of thought, and the right to freedom of religion. So why don't we just apply the Canadian law. In the law, under section 223 of the Criminal Code of Canada, a fetus is a "human being ... when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother whether or not it has completely breathed, it has an independent circulation or the navel string is severed." Clear.

And who do all these religious fanatics think they are that could force their murky religious fantasies on another human being. Religion is nothing else than some old fairy tales man made stories about something that does not exist. Get a life and let the woman decide what is best for her.