Nathan R. Jessup

Abortion Is Murder; Pro-Abortionists Lie To Sleep At Night

In abortion, Government Lies, Health Care, Integrity, morality, Obama, Religion, World News on February 4, 2010 at 3:21 am

As I have followed and posted on the Tim Tebow pro-life Superbowl ad set to run this coming Sunday, I uncovered some horrifying and morbidly unethical pro-murder advocates in the process. First, I would like to show you, with amazing new technology, the children whom pro-choicers refer to as “a clump of cells”. With new 3D ultrasound machines mothers can now see exactly what their babies look like before they are born.

Here is an image of a baby sucking his thumb:

You can see the contours of the face, the individual fingers and even the habits of the unborn child. The gift of life has never been so clear.

In this next photo, you can see the baby actually smiling inside the whom and out:

Truly unbelievable.

This next picture shows the baby’s body and limbs as clear as day:

What a miracle.

Finally, a split photo of an unborn child next to the same child after it was born:

Look at the striking resemblance between the two photos.

Mind you it’s 2:57 am Thursday morning and I am having trouble sleeping; not from of a compromised conscience rather, two cups of Dunkin’ Donuts coffee. As I enjoy my caffeine overload I begin to click through web pages at a steady speed of mach 12. As I click through hundreds of pages, I reach one that leaves me scratching my head: “Abortion Is Prolife”-yep, it’s real. Let me share with you what I found:

(Abortion Is Prolife Leonard Peikoff ) Thirty years after Roe V. Wade, no one defends the right to abortion in fundamental, moral terms, which is why the pro-abortion rights forces are on the defensive.

Abortion-rights advocates should not cede the terms “pro-life” and “right to life” to the anti-abortionists. It is a woman’s right to her life that gives her the right to terminate her pregnancy.

Nor should abortion-rights advocates keep hiding behind the phrase “a woman’s right to choose.” Does she have the right to choose murder? That’s what abortion would be, if the fetus were a person.

The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.

We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman’s choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman’s body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous.

If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an “unborn child,” we could, with equal logic, call any adult an “undead corpse” and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students.

That tiny growth, that mass of protoplasm, exists as a part of a woman’s body. It is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person. That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. Rights belong only to individuals, not to collectives or to parts of an individual.

(“Independent” does not mean self-supporting–a child who depends on its parents for food, shelter, and clothing, has rights because it is an actual, separate human being.)

“Rights,” in Ayn Rand’s words, “do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born.”

It is only on this base that we can support the woman’s political right to do what she chooses in this issue. No other person–not even her husband–has the right to dictate what she may do with her own body. That is a fundamental principle of freedom.

There are many legitimate reasons why a rational woman might have an abortion–accidental pregnancy, rape, birth defects, danger to her health. The issue here is the proper role for government. If a pregnant woman acts wantonly or capriciously, then she should be condemned morally–but not treated as a murderer.

If someone capriciously puts to death his cat or dog, that can well be reprehensible, even immoral, but it is not the province of the state to interfere. The same is true of an abortion which puts to death a far less-developed growth in a woman’s body.

If anti-abortionists object that an embryo has the genetic equipment of a human being, remember: so does every cell in the human body.

Abortions are private affairs and often involve painfully difficult decisions with life-long consequences. But, tragically, the lives of the parents are completely ignored by the anti-abortionists. Yet that is the essential issue. In any conflict it’s the actual, living persons who count, not the mere potential of the embryo.

Being a parent is a profound responsibility–financial, psychological, moral–across decades. Raising a child demands time, effort, thought and money. It’s a full-time job for the first three years, consuming thousands of hours after that–as caretaker, supervisor, educator and mentor. To a woman who does not want it, this is a death sentence.

The anti-abortionists’ attitude, however, is: “The actual life of the parents be damned! Give up your life, liberty, property and the pursuit of your own happiness.”

Sentencing a woman to sacrifice her life to an embryo is not upholding the “right-to-life.”

The anti-abortionists’ claim to being “pro-life” is a classic Big Lie. You cannot be in favor of life and yet demand the sacrifice of an actual, living individual to a clump of tissue.

Anti-abortionists are not lovers of life–lovers of tissue, maybe. But their stand marks them as haters of real human beings.

If you are feeling like I did after reading that unbelievably flawed essay by Peikoff, you probably feel like screaming. Here are two comments by readers:

“I just had to write and say thanks for your website. I am a mother of two in the U.K., both dads ran…and now I find myself pregnant again. I knew I didn’t want another baby. I looked up abortion on the net & hit all the pro-life groups first. I felt guilty as hell. But you’ve made me realize I do have a choice. This is my life. You’ve made me feel like a single mum with a choice. Not a murderer. I can’t thank you enough.”

“Enjoyed reading your very succinct and persuasive arguments on abortion. Finally, some rationale, well-thought-out answers.”

Finally, I will leave you with an actual 3D video of a child at only 12 weeks (at the end of the 1st trimester):

It’s the woman’s right to murder this child? Our President supports it, shouldn’t you? I will leave you with a quote from Ayn Rand taken from the homepage of the site:

I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object…Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves ‘pro-life.’

I don’t envy the nightmares that will haunt you all forever…

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit covers the Pro-Abortion ad by professional athletes

Advertisements
  1. Nathan,

    Back to the original prompt for your posting of this topic on here, I wanted to ask what about the network’s decision not to air an ad for a Gay Man’s dating side during the Superbowl? Isn’t the station’s denying of one group’s rights to air an advertisement while allowing the other the right an infringement on free speech?

    Looking forward to your thoughts.

    -RAG

  2. Well, if CBS were to reject one ad over another simply because they wanted to, it would be more a case of discrimination as opposed to freedom of speech.

    ManCrunch.com (the gay dating site) submitted their request for an ad, many say, to simply gain press exposure for free and had no intention of actually securing the 30 second spot. Either way, the ad was rejected for other reasons:

    “CBS turned down a $2.5 million Super Bowl ad that would have promoted the gay dating Website ManCrunch, saying it didn’t pass muster with the network’s Standards and Practices department, B&C reports.

    A network spokeswoman said CBS is always open to working with clients on alternative ads, but a source told B&C that the dating company’s creditworthiness was also an issue. ManCrunch wasn’t available for comment, B&C said.”

    –Elizabeth Jensen

    The ad eventually shows two men making out and felt just possibly this wouldn’t be appropriate for children on Superbowl Sunday. CBS also rejected another GoDaddy.com add they felt was too racy. As a reminder, Tim Tebow’s ad is extremely uplifting and focuses only on the miracle that has been his life (from everything I have read). If the ad featured graphic scenes of abortions and women waking in the middle of the night with nightmares, it too would have been rejected.

    Do you find it odd that an ad featuring life and all the wonderful things about it causes any controversy; says something about society today.

    • Nathan,

      Here is the story about this on NPR today (a bastion of the liberal left mind you…haha). You can watch the video on this page and read the story as well:

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123377010&ps=cprs

      Its a lot of he said, she said stuff in my humble opinion. I just can’t help but wonder what would have happened if the tables were turned. But then again, debating hypotheticals isn’t productive, so I’ll pretend I didn’t bring it up.

      Cheers,
      RAG

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: