But as for me and my house ...
Science describes the child-mother biologic relationship as semi-allogeneic [al-oh-juh-nee-ik], which refers to tissue or cells that are genetically dissimilar and, thus, immunologically incompatible, even though they are from individuals of the same species. Therefore, from conception, the growing human is an individual, genetically similar to but different enough from it's mother to warrant attack by the mother's immune system, yet unable to subsist on its own. I will expound on this further below.
America Responds to the Murder of Live Babies
In response to recent revelations of abortion clinics actively killing live-born babies, the Florida Congress established a committee to look at proposing legislation that would require medical care presently denied babies born alive during ‘unsuccessful’ abortions.
On March 29, 2013, Alisa LaPolt Snow, a lobbyist with the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified before a committee hearing, stating, "Planned Parenthood condemns any physician who does not follow the law or endangers a woman's or a child's health, but we don't believe that politicians should be the ones who decide what constitutes the best, medically appropriate treatment in any given situation."
Ms. Snow contradicts herself in that this statement declares that the child's health should not be endangered -- but that is exactly what is being done in Planned Parenthood clinics.
Decades' long work by Planned Parenthood to obtain legalization of abortion that culminated in 1973, through the legal system, was proper then, but now it is not? As we know more about embryonic and fetal development and have proof of the true evil nature of man to commit murder, people are questioning where to draw the line.
It is important that you understand the eugenic motivations and progression of the Planned Parenthood program contained in the article on this site: 'The Truth About Planned Parenthood'. (use the search window)
Conflicting Supreme Court Rulings
The Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that, although states have an interest in protecting fetal life, such interest was not "compelling" until the fetus was viable (placing viability at the start of the third trimester) which was established at six months prenatal. Third trimester abortions were declared legal only if the mother's life or health was threatened.
That same day, the Supreme Court also published its ruling in an another abortion lawsuit that is never discussed: Doe v. Bolton. This is possibly because the verdicts in Doe and Roe conflict in that the Doe ruling defines "health of the mother" in generously broader terms, essentially eliminating any prohibition to third trimester abortions.
According to Justice Harry Blackmun's opinion, a woman's health included her "physical, emotional, psychological, (and) familial" well-being, and should include considerations about the woman's age. "All these factors may relate to health," Blackmun argued, so as to give "the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment." The opinion effectively removes the mother from the equation in that he gives the doctor autonomy in judgment.
The Supreme Court relied on notions of living constitutionalism, invoking the doctrine of “substantive due process” to expand on a Court-created “right” that is nowhere to be found in the text of the Constitution. The Court has never had the privilege of making or expanding law (neither does the President) - only interpreting its meaning. But, that hasn't stopped the modern-day Courts from doing so.
Legalized abortion was established through these conflicting Supreme Court rulings. That alone should cause us pause!
It appears that the Supreme Court purposely paved the road that led us to where we are today. Otherwise, this conflict would have been corrected. After all, it's not as though the same Justices weren't involved in both rulings.
Could it be that the Doe ruling was the law which has been utilized but hidden from the American public that would not have agreed to broad privileges to provide practically limitless abortions? And, the more restrictive, more acceptable, Roe ruling was presented to the public in its place?
It is much easier to understand how Planned Parenthood defends abortion for any reason and at any time up to, and including, full-term birth. And, if the baby is born alive, Planned Parenthood facilities deny medical care or actively murder the infant.
If newborn infants can be murdered because they are not 'wanted', at what point will it become legal to kill children while they are minors under parents’ care?! This may sound incredible, but that is where we are headed should the self-conflicting laws not be quashed immediately.
Dangers to Women's Health from Abortions Evidenced
Contrary to what is revealed by Planned Parenthood (these are their clinics, after all), late-term abortions are dangerous to the mother. Case in point: Mrs. Jennifer Morbelli, who went to a Germantown, Maryland (just outside Washington, D.C.), abortion clinic on a Sunday afternoon for a late-term abortion. The articles' description of events (and reason for the abortion) will make you sick.
A quick search reveals that abortions are now sought for reasons as insignificant as the sex of the baby.
Knitted Together in the Womb
King David eloquently sang, "For you fashioned my inmost being, you knit me together in my mother’s womb." (Psalm 139:13) David praised God for His continued work, creating each new life by 'knitting' the body and embedding the soul (i.e., consciousness) in private - where people could not see.
I submit, and am supported by ‘learned Rabbis’ who were asked the question of when does life begin according to the Tanakh (Old Testament): life begins at the moment of conception.
Proof: Scientific research, unavailable in 1973, has revealed the female body secrets a hormone to prevent the body from rejecting the ‘foreign’ cells of the embryo and fetus. Through the regulation of other biologic processes, the body maintains a welcoming environment until the birth of the baby; even though the body is designed to protect itself from perceived foreign invasion, until the immunological system is exhausted, and the body becomes susceptible to all manner of disease. (reproduction-online.org) In contrast, the average healthy mother practically insusceptible to virus and bacteria.
Reproductive immunologists have discovered that the fetal trophoblast is also responsible for some of the changes in the way the mother's body reacts by regulating maternal immune cells in its vicinity within the womb. Both mother and fetus contribute to developing and maintaining an environment in which the baby can develop, but obviously view each other as foreign threats. The fetus also develops its own blood vessels that are separated from the mother's blood supply by a thin membrane, since the infant has a different blood type in most cases.
All of these factors and many others, support the fact that from conception, the infant is a separate human being.
Life Begins at Birth - Or, Not
Even if you don't want to believe the facts presented, consider this:
Planned Parenthood's stated position for thirty years has been that life began at birth. That stated position is being mitigated to: life only begins at birth -- if the mother wants it to. They now state that the mother and doctor should be at liberty to destroy life post-birth.
To Planned Parenthood this is not a contradiction with their long-held precept because they do not believe in the inviolability of life. (At least, they don't believe in the inviolability of others' lives.) They shed more tears for the death of a stillborn puppy than for the murder of an 'unwanted' newborn.
Where there is no belief in the inviolability of life -- there is no acceptance of God. This is just one part of the deception overtaking mankind. It is the deception being used for Eugenics - not a new ideal - that was utilized by Nazis.
Please Post a Comment or Contact Us Below