abort73.com - preview of their new site

[dizzle]

http://abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/medical_testimony#

Watch the video.

Man, I have had a disturbing morning. First, I watched Fitna, and now this.

[JenSen]

I watched it. Thanks for showing us. It troubles me, more than anything, that someone can admit that life begins at fertilization, and admit that abortion kills a human life.... and still kill a baby anyway. Judith Thomson (http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm) talks like that in her famous piece: the baby is still a human, but there can still be reasons to kill certain humans. It makes me sick. It's rationalizing the destruction of the most helpless member of our society: the one who in no way can fight for his or her own life, and needs us to fight for him or her instead.

[dizzle]

Read the quotes from the likes of Naomi Wolf. Ack. Just sad.

I really think that if I became a Christian earlier and before being married, I likely would never have settled down but would have committed myself to this cause full-time.

[dizzle]

There are essentially two issues which must be resolved concerning unborn embryos and fetuses. The first is, "Are they human beings?" The second is, "Should they be recognized as persons under the law?" We've already established that there is no debate on the first question. It is a matter of plain, objective science. Embryos and fetuses are fully and individually human from the moment of fertilization on. If this were not true, if unborn children were not demonstrably human, there would be no need to even talk about rights of personhood. "Removing a fetus" would be the moral equivalent of pulling a tooth. This, however, is not the case, and so the debate must now enter the political arena.

There is a very real sense in which the need to answer this second question is, in itself, an absurdity. If you look up the word "person" in your average dictionary (we'll use Webster's), you'll find something like this:

Person n. A human being.

A person, simply put, is a human being. This fact should be enough. The intrinsic humanity of unborn children, by definition, makes them persons and should, therefore, guarantee their protection under the law. For more than thirty years, however, this has not been the case. The situation we are left with is this. In America today, there is a huge and singular group of living human beings who have no protection under the law and are being killed en masse every day. Is that not astounding?! It is astounding, but not wholly unprecedented.

There have been at least two other instances in American history in which specific groups of human beings were stripped of their rights of personhood as a means of justifying their horrible mistreatment. African-Americans and Native-Americans both felt the brunt of a system which denied their humanity, stripped their personhood and subjected them to horrors beyond measure. While the legal framework that made such injustice possible has now been removed, it remains firmly in place for unborn Americans.

There remains one, and only one, group of human beings in the U.S. today for which being human is not enough. The inconvenience of their existence has resulted in a legal loophole of shameful proportions. What is a person? A person is a human being (unless, of course, you haven't been born yet, in which case we'll define personhood in any way possible so as to exclude you, kill you and forget you).

Welcome to America.

Indeed.