More News

Authorities Prepare To Seize Kids During Swine Flu Pandemic

http://www.infowars.com/strange-similarities-between-recent-ny-times-and-economist-right-wing-terrorism-threat%C2%A0articles/


http://letsrollforums.com/coming-prince-sir-robert-t19270.html


___________________________


I urge everyone who doesn't claim the abortion industry is in it for money to read the book bloodmoney. It's about an ex-abortionist who told her story.





_______________________


PRO-ABORTION ARGUMENT:
"A fetus isn't a person until quickening or viability."



PRO-LIFE ANSWER: Part III
The point of viability constantly changes because it depends on technology, not the unborn herself. Eventually babies may be viable from the point of conception.

Like all points other than conception, viability is arbitrary, but it is even more arbitrary than most. The point at which heart and brain develop--through unscientific as measurements of personhood--at least remain fairly constant. Yet in the last three decades, viability has been reduced from thirty weeks to less than twenty weeks of development. A child has actually been born at 17 weeks and survived.

Viability depends not only on the child but on the ability of our technology to save his life. What will happen when we are able to save lives at fifteen weeks or less? Will they suddenly become human and worthy to live? Can we honestly believe that children at twenty-one weeks were not human twenty years ago, but are now simply because of improved technology? Or can we believe that the unborn at eighteen weeks, who is just barely nonviable, is not a human being because he may not be able to survive out of the womb?

Does the baby's nature and worth also depend on which hospital---or country --he is in since some hopitals are equipped to save a nineteen week developed child, and others could save a child no earlier than 28 weeks? Technologies change, babies do not. Surely we cannot believe that the sophistication of life support systems determines the reality or worth of human life!

Dr. Landrum Shettles, a pioneer in fertility and sperm biology and contributor to fifty medical textbooks, made this assessment of the Supreme Court's arguments based on viability:

"An abortion law truly based on 'viability' would require constant redefinition. What was not considered protectable human life last year might be this year. If we were to take the Court at its word, we would find ourselves with a law that makes last year's abortions this years homicides in some cases. I have maintained human embryos in 'labratory wombs' for several days...It appears inevitable that the day will come when the unborn will always be potentially viable outside of the womb."

"Test-tube" babies have already survived for days outside the womb before implantation. Shouldn't proponents of the viability theory then maintain that they were human from the point of conception since they were viable all along? As Dr. Shettles suggests, viability is ultimately an argument for all preborn children since eventually science may find a way for an entire "pregnancy"to take place outside of a mother.

Despite all of this, the Supreme Court cited viability as the point where the state has a compelling interest in the welfare of the unborn. (Ironically, the wording of the decision allowed abortion after viability anyway.) However in the Webster v. Reproductive Health Services decision the Supreme Court began to dismantle the illogical conclusions of Roe v. Wade when it said: "We do not see why the State's interest in protecting potential human life should come into existence only at the point of viability."