Legal Murder

Murder is a legal term and it applies to abortion until a law is passed that says otherwise. That courts do not charge abortionists with murder has to do with the fact that it is legal, not that it isn't murder. For murder to apply, one human being kills another human being. The pre-born child is a living human being from conception, this is a biological fact - ducks come from ducks, frogs from frogs and humans from humans - FACT. Also, the fact that pre-born have limited rights is a legal choice, after all, in Canada, women were not "persons" under the law until into the 20th century and had very limited rights (just like pre-born children today), yet if someone killed a woman, they could still be charged with murder, unless a law was passed to legalise the murder of women (thankfully this did not happen). In the US, blacks did not always have the legal status of "personhood", yet a person could be charged with their murder; however, depending on when and/or where this occurred, the penalty might not be the same as for murdering a "white" person. Even an illegal alien can be "murdered" - citizenship is not a prerequisite. It was decided that certain persons were less equal than others and, therefore, treated differently. Blacks, Jews, Women were not and are not subhuman and do not deserve to be treated like animals or worse; the same is true for babies that are still in the womb -they are not sub-human, inferior, or alien - we all started as a zygote, we all developed in basically the same way and will continue growing through many stages of development until we die, either of old age or cut short by accident, disease or someone else's choice. (As posted elsewhere)

Luck of the Draw

We live in the age of ultrasound, 3-D imaging, more powerful forms of stethoscopes - we know more about fetal development than we did 30 years ago. The fact is that not only is abortion murder, many forms of abortion are more sadistic and brutal than any form of torture imagined in our brutal past. We used to believe that the developing child had an "immature" nervous system and, as such, it would not "feel" the pain of an abortion. WRONG!!! Although it takes time for all of the nerves to be fully formed, as each nerve forms and is connected to the developing brain, there is an "all or nothing" response - once the nerve is activated, there is no "shut-off" or "dampening" mechanism in place to reduce or minimize the pain felt. Unlike us, mature adults, the developing child, and even the new born child, feels pain much more intensely than we do and cannot stop the pain. In-utero surgery used be done without anesthetic, and many pre-born children died of shock from the intense pain - doctors didn't know that they needed to deal with the pain first. Now many procedures are performed with suitable pain relief measures in place and the outcomes are much more successful. Circumcisions used to be performed without any pain relief measures, due to ignorance. Some still do, but many now recognise (due to actual studies on this matter) that baby boys do feel pain VERY intensely and need a superior pain relief measure than an older child or adult would.Sadly, a wanted child will receive all the care and attention during these difficult situations. But, for the unwanted (or inconventient) child - the method of execution is often worse than anything we would inflict upon our worst serial killers.If a pro-lifer views abortion more seriously than war or famine or any other social or international problem - it is because there is no greater problem. Abortions kill more than wars, more than famines, more than disease - and its done intentionally and legally. So long as we are capable of so brutally destroying a young human life, how can we expect anyone on this planet to seriously reject wars, stop famines, deal effectively with disease, poverty, violence. (as posted elsewhere)

My Body, My Choice... Part 2

Self ownership is important to all humans. We love our freedom and should fight to keep it. No one has the right to remove your kidney without your permission. No one has the right to tell you what to think. No one has the right to kill another human being for any reason, especially not to inherit or otherwise obtain property, or to remove a rival in business, or a rival or impediment for any other kind of success, whether in love, professional, or personal ambitions. In the pursuit of this personal freedom, we have abolished slavery in this country. We have laws to protect us from each other (most of the time). And, to most, it would be unthinkable to allow the death of another for want of money or possessions. Yet, our modern society with all of its social concerns, still thinks it is acceptable to not only allow the death of our youngest members, but to proceed with their termination under the most gruesome of conditions for even the most frivolous of reasons. When a woman becomes pregnant, she conceives a totally new and distinct human being. This person has DNA that is not like the mother or the father, even if there are some similarities. This person will have a distinct personality and appearance, both of which are already determined within the unique DNA that is present at conception - the genotype is set, the phenotype may be somewhat influenced by outside forces, but will not be identical to either parent. The child may be dependent upon the mother for the duration of his or her stay within the womb (and, possibly, for a lengthy period after that); but, the mother does not "own" the child the way she owns her kidneys or heart or limbs, or even her womb. Slavery has been abolished. A mother does not have the moral right to "evict" her tennant in a way that will cause the child to die. Where I come from, landlords of buildings are not legally permitted to evict their tennants if the eviction will harm (or kill) the tennants due to unfavorable weather conditions. Lawyers may say otherwise; however, consider what many people think about a 1000 lawyers at the bottom of lake.Children do not "invade" their mother's womb - the act of sex invites them. If any sexually mature individual out there does not know that the biological function of sex is to produce offspring should go to their medical doctor and request to be sterilized for the sake of improving our gene pool.
As posted elsewhere on 6/09/2006 2:37 PM

It's Alive!

Prenates (unborn babies) are sentient with functioning senses by the end of the first trimester, so says Sir William Lily (pioneering father of fetology) and Dr. Arnold Gesell of Yale (both have passed away and did their groundbreaking work prior to the legalization of abortion in North America). Prenates have an awareness of their surroundings and respond to changes in their surroundings (and just like other children, they appear to like sweets). This is born out by modern observations made possible through the use of ultrasound technology. Amniocentesis performed at about 16 weeks gestation is performed with the use of an ultrasound machine in order to locate the fetus, the intent is to draw amniotic fluid, not harm the developing baby. During these procedures, which are done routinely, it has been observed that the baby will deliberately move away from the needle, even though the needle has not touched it, and if the needle does nick the baby (accidently) the baby will respond by swiping at the barrel of the needle with its fist. These actions demonstrate a clear awareness on the part of the baby to its surroundings and, while reflex may play a part in the baby's defensive action against a nick, the responses cannot be attributed to a simple reflex action. There has been the suggestion that the babies cannot feel pain until much later, despite EEG and ECG recordings and other observations during painful events, due to the later maturation of the cortex. Yet, according to Patton et al, Intro to Basic Neurology, W.B. Saunders Co. 1976, p. 178, the cortex is not an essential component - you can remove the cortex and still feel pain - so long as you have a thalamus which is functioning by eight weeks gestation. There is a difference between organic (physical) pain and psychological pain - they are connected, but it is not necessary to have both components to "feel" pain. For example, if you accidently touch a hot burner on a stove, you will have pulled your hand away before you are cognisant of what has happened. However, if you think back, you will note that you felt the pain first, then the defensive reflex was initiated to pull your hand away from the painful stimulus, then the pain registered in your brain and you became intellectually aware of the pain and then noticed that you had a burn on your hand and then you took action to alleviate that pain by putting your hand under cool running water. The reflex was triggered by the pain and the reaction was completed before it registered, but the pain was felt first and if you really think about it, you will remember that the pain was felt first on a physical level, before being "experienced" on a conscious level. You can remove the conscious level, but you will still feel the pain and it will hurt.Prenates under 30 weeks of age are hypersensitive and so feel pain much more intensely than those with mature brains. Normally, in the womb, there is no need for protective measures that develop later, there should be no safer place for a developing baby. This is born out by our experience with premature babies. Neonates from 22 weeks to 30 weeks are noticably hypersensitive to all stimuli (light, sound, touch) and respond well to measures designed to mute such stimuli, including the use of anaesthetics during invasive procedures. Why does anyone believe that a healthy fetus in the womb is less affected by stimuli than its prematurely born counterpart.
As posted elsewhere on 6/05/2006 2:52 PM

A Matter of Perception

How low have we fallen. I know that there are some who would like to believe that babies do not feel pain in the womb, and I have seem some studies that seem to support that, if only I were ignorant enough to believe them. On paper, whether a baby "feels" pain has more to do with whether the child is wanted and/or if the doctor supports the abortion industry. For example, if your baby was planned and precious and long awaited by all parties and something goes wrong, requiring in-utero surgery to fix it - you will want to sign that little document that allows the medical team of crack surgeons to use top of the line anaesthetics to ensure an improved medical outcome (the survival of your little bundle of joy). Now maybe you can be fooled into thinking that this young child lacks the specific structural developments to "feel" the pain or, more precisely, "recognise" the pain it feels on an intellectual level (apparently it isn't smart enough yet to recognise why it is writhing in agony). But the child fares much better if it is not exposed to the pain it is not supposed to be able to feel yet. That is practical medical reality, not wishful theory.Of course, if the child is unwanted and a royal inconvenience to your plans to go to where-ever to do whatever, then any abortionist will tell you - of course it can't feel pain - everything is there (the brain, the nerves, etc.), but the brain just isn't developed enough to recognise the pain for what it is.Bull!!!! This arrogance was behind the practice not only of performing in-utero surgeries without pain relief measures, but also performing circumcisions on young boys without pain relief measures. After all, those very studies that suggest that babies do not feel pain until after 29 weeks, also say that we really don't develop the cognitive ability to recognise pain until well after we are born. Yet, an experiment designed to test baby boys and their response to circumcisions under various methods of pain relief had to be stopped very early in the testing stage because it became immediately apparent that the babies did feel pain to a much greater degree than adults do. The remaining patients were given their circumcisions with the maximum pain relief measures. And modern in-utero surgeries do make use of pain relief measures for the baby.The mistake was that "everyone" assumed that the developing brain lacked the ability to feel pain until it was older, that all the parts weren't all working together yet; when the reality is that developing brain lacks the ability to deal with the pain - the brain can't shut it down. The Baby may not be able to identify what the pain is the way that we can as adults - but, the pain is not only present but much more intense in developing babies.I don't know exactly when babies do begin to feel, but I would not touch a fetus after seven weeks gestation - after 12 weeks, your doctor would have to be a cruel, sadistic SOB to proceed with an abortion (either that, or just old and out of touch with modern medicine). I would even wonder about babies as early as seven days when the neural tube begins to form, but I can at least hope that one week is too soon.We try to protect animals because they lack our intelligence and understanding. But, we recognise that they feel pain. Why do we assume for humans that it doesn't really hurt until it can be identified and labelled.
As posted elsewhere on 5/31/2006 3:13 PM

My Body, My Choice...

Here's a thought. We always talk about "my body, my choice" and a woman's right to determine who may or may not "occupy" her womb. I have lived in areas where it is illegal for tennants to be evicted from their place of residence for any reason, during periods of time where the outside conditions (weather, temperature, etc.) might cause the death of the tennants. Landlords must wait until suitable weather arrives before evicting undesirable (unpaying, etc.) tennants. The basic biological function of sex is to create new life. When any two persons of opposite gender engage in an act whereby a baby may be created, they have extended an invitation to that person - it's not like the baby just dropped in of its own accord. Just how and when did it become a "right" for any human being to murder another human being for any reason? Regardless of when philosophers think that life might begin (biologically it begins at conception), whether at forty years, birth, when the heart starts beating, etc.; we are still talking about a human being. Given the direction that our culture is heading in, I fear that soon, we won't just be knocking off our babies. How long before we start putting a "value" on everyone's life, and pulling the plug on any who do not measure up?
As posted elsewhere on 5/29/2006 7:29 PM

Choice or No Choice?

Pro-Abortion is NOT Pro-Choice. Choice means that a woman can choose to not have an abortion, but every person that I have encountered who favours "choice" does not support a woman's right to choose to have her baby. Not only are they reluctant to support adoption rights or provide economic support to women in difficult situations, they also reject the basic right of "informed consent". I know many women who have had abortions and they sufferred dearly for their "choice" because of the decision of their medical practitioners to withhold basic information that might have altered their decision to have the abortion. Sometimes, the information might have only made the abortion process safer, but it was not deemed important to the abortion provider that the "silly" woman know the little details like how to care for yourself after a second or third trimester abortion. I nearly lost a friend because the hospital staff didn't consider it important to teach her how to prevent an infection after the abortion, nor what signs to watch for should there be complications - she owes her life to two pro-life friends with first-aid training, including one who served as an army medic.It was never about "choice", it was always about "money", and I am tired of women being victimized by this ancient and barbaric practice known as abortion.
Posted by me on another blog on 5/16/2006 2:50 PM

Its Hurrican Season - Go Oilers Go!

It's a little windy, but my boys can handle it. They just need to remember, that it is the team that scores the most goals, not the team that blocks the most goals, that wins.