February 24, 2006
-
Abortion Part 3
With changes of two new people on the Supreme Court, we have had a ton of conversation about what that will mean to us as citizens. One area that is being looked at is the potential of rulings on abortion. I was thinking of asking the other day if you thought that abortion was going to be made illegal by the Supreme Court. But I decided against it. Then I noticed the main page of MSN asked that very question.
I want to focus instead our attention on one issue. I have noticed a trend in recent years for each state to begin to make laws limiting abortion. The most recent law was made in South Dakota. The law is that abortion will be made illegal except in cases where the woman’s life is at stake.
There is some buzz that this may be brought all the way to the Supreme Court. I don’t think we will see abortion made illegal across the country. I think instead we will see various states with different laws on abortion. So some states will have abortion legal in most cases but other states will ban abortion except when the woman’s life is at risk.
The question I have today is related to whether there should be a national standard or should it be left up to the individual states. Some areas like capital punishment are decided state by state so the standards are different.
Civil rights was an issue that ended up being decided at the national level because the states were inconsistent in their application of civil rights.
Should the abortion issue be decided at the national level or should it be decided by each individual state?
Comments (167)
national
National.
national
national level because if its illegal in one state one can head over to the next state. this causes problems between states.
I don’t get the idea of having majour laws like that just be decided by state. It has to deal with the whole country, really, so I just don’t get it.
I’m not sure.
Abortion to me is wrong on any level. But you can’t legislate morality and you can’t legislate life.
I think the government as a whole is way too involved in nitty-gritty details.
I don’t think it should be the “vote” deciding issue it is.
I’m not making any sense…..
State
I believe that the states should choose. That way each state is responsible for it’s own limitations.
state. the federal government was not meant to handle decisions like that.
and yes, vgarr, you can legislate morality. every law is somebody’s morality in writing.
It will end up as a national law, then it will change, then it will change again. Such is the nature of our democracy.
States rights, man… But I don’t think the SD law will stand for long. And I don’t think the ‘right-leaning’ Supreme Court will make much of a difference either.
I think it should be decided on a national level.
I agree that it is wrong on any level, and i agree that it will cause disputes between states – maybe turn into another civil war, but perhaps not of that magnitude.
I’m not sure, but i am sure that for some states to warrant death and others to grant life seems downright wrong.
<3
Statewise I think would be more fair.
I think it should be decided at the national level.
Honestly? No clue. The whole abortion thing is very…difficult to decide anything upon it.
It would be good for the states to decide for themselves. Abortion I believe, is a much more serious issue than the question of gay marriages. And a state has already made gay marriages legal. And you can see that a lot more people go there just to get married there since it’s legal. So why should abortion be any different? If it’s not legal at all in the US, there will definitely be countries where it will be, and women will just go there to get abortions. And then there’s the issue of doing it illegally. Whether abortion is illegal or not, it’s gonna happen.
Anyways, there is a part in the Constitution that says that states must respect each other’s laws..so I guess that solves it.
But hey, if abortion should be illegal, then so should strip clubs, pornography, the death sentence, etc. All are wrong, and yet, men can go and watch women wave their asses at their faces and then jerk off to some degrading porn.
national
by INDIVIDUAL
PERSON
PRIVATE
AND
PERSONAL!
States. But, I want it illegal everywhere. It’s our Auschwitz. The pro-lifers are the modern abolitionist fighting for the freedom of the unborn to have an active life. The ignorant, clueless and brainwashed who kill the innocent are one thing, but the ones who knowingly kill an innocent life are no better than the Nazis sending the Jews to the gas chambers. A third of our population is missing. I think the last count was 50 million. That’s not birth control that’s genocide.
Oh this is tough — states’ rights are really important, and I’m learning more about them recently, but I’d say an issue this big needs to be a national consensus. Life is not a trivial thing.
Melissa
it should be left alone all together. it’s a woman’s body, not the government’s.
If there were to be limits, them hospitals and clinics should make limits, not the governments.
It should be nationally decided that ABORTION IS WRONG
It should definitely be a national law.
Nicholas
i dont’ think they should decide for the women.
its their body. not the men’s
but if need it be. state
so SOME women could get an abortion.
C’MON! WHAT IF IT WAS A RAPISTS CHILD!?!?!
hmmm. i wouldn’t want to have that kid.
<3 Catrina
I think it is something of a national issue. Abortion is, of course, an issue that a lot of women face. The more desperate ones are likely to take a chance and ride off to another state and get themselves an abortion.
That, in turn, begs the question: why can’t it be an international issue? Because any women could look for a country who doesn’t restrict abortion and go there, granting that they can get on a plane in the first place. Of course, you have to consider sterile conditions and whatnot, but still…
Anyway, I’m rambling. ^^;;
it should be left alone all together. it’s a woman’s body, not the government’s.
Posted 2/24/2006 at 9:32 PM by xchildish
So it’s a child if you have it and a fingernail if you don’t?
women should decide, not the total strangers in the government. totally agree with Catrina^.
It’s a woman’s body? Hmmm, so it’s a child/human/soveriegn being if you have it and a fingernail if you don’t?
i must say that i think that your xanga is simply amazing.
<3
national, and it should be illegal.
national. if its state then someone go just go acrosss the border and have it done. and all states should have the same rights, no?
It should be a state’s choice.
If it is then of course you’d have it legal in some states and illegal in others; therefore a woman could have some place to go to get an abortion if that’s what she chooses to do.
A woman should always have options and abortion should be one of them. What if rape or incest was the case? Just because I may never get an abortion doesn’t mean I should prevent others from doing so.
National, and here’s why: If we leave it up to the states, then women will just go to a different state to get an abortion. The only exception to that would be if her nearest state had a stipulation saying “No out of state abortions.”
States… but even if the U.S. Congress steps in, it shouldn’t be unconstitutional to outlaw abortion.
Although I also agree with Jaz when she said an individuals choice….
national. abortion is wrong and unhumane.!
state
national.
federal. it would better ensure that all women, not just those who reside in a particular state, receive equal treatment.
Hmm..I read and thought some more (just a little).
People, you can’t decide to outlaw abortion “because it’s wrong.” Wrong and right are just points of view, after all…
It should be national, state, standardized and a case of individualism. I use to talk to a few homeschoolers who thought that if a ten year old got pregnant that she should have the baby. I have always been under the old school of thought that if something happened to a womens or childs body it should be up to them and a doctor. People still go out and rape women and girls at an alarming rate still today and if it is illegalized to have an abortion where does this leave them? I was also raised a catholic with whom believes that all life is precious. I have to say that if it is not standardized then the cleanliness of these places would go down the tubes and kill the people who are being helped. I dont like the choice of having a baby that is not wanted. I also dont like giving up a baby to the government agencies where they arent always taken care of either. The government screws with us and our minds that it is sometimes a no win system either way..
At the state level.
To implement at the National level, no matter what the intention gives the federal government ENTIRELY too much power. Our country was set up so that state governments would run under the supervision and care of the national government, and it needs to stay that way. Smaller state governments prevent tyrrany of the majority!
A couple people posted “Niether, individual”
that was clever.
I reject my earlier vote of “state” and switch to “individual”
I would think national level as it pertains to a person’s life, however the Constitution of the United States already speaks to the national level and states that all other laws must be decided at the state level. We do not always hold to this, but that’s the statement of our Constitution.
I’m not sure. I’d like to insure that it’s illegal in all states (decided in the national level), but what if the federal government decides it legal…in all the states? Hmm…
Also, I’ve read a couple people commenting that women should be allowed to choose, and they use the example of rape. I realize that this is a touchy and difficult situation. But one has to take into consideration that that child is just that, a CHILD.
“i dont’ think they should decide for the women.
its their body. not the men’s”
That’s an interesting statement from early on that completely neglects the fact that there are several lives involved here.
federal….
People, you can’t decide to outlaw abortion “because it’s wrong.” Wrong and right are just points of view, after all… (posted by cts3seto)
ok, you can think that if you want, but would that be right or wrong?….and what makes it right or wrong to think that? there must be a standard to define right and wrong. otherwise everything could be right and wrong at the same time, and everyone could live however the wished, consquences would be constantly ignored for actions and the world would be an even bigger screw ball than it already is. think about it, if someone murdered a loved one, would you want them to go through the consequences for their actions? would what they did be wrong? why would it be wrong?….just some things to think about before you go saying that right and wrong are just points of view.
LTNS old friend
*lol* i don’t live in the state so i have comment on this =)
your username attracts me all the time and it’s my 4th time went into your site..
i still can remember your layout.. so i decided to subscribe you* hope you don’t mind =P
i like to read what other thinks more then i write mine.. – Ivy
As a summation of my ideas on abortion, first and foremost, I cite a somewhat-aged Xanga entry of mine:
- – - – - – - -
- – - – - – - –
[BEGIN]
So, what is Abortion? According to the general public, it is “killing an un-born child.” But, when do an egg and sperm make a child? Having learned a little more about the process of conception (and contraception) in my health class during this semester, I’m disinclined to believe so, based upon my own definition of what a human is — that being a sentient homo-sapien, or one in developement. Upon conception, an egg is simply fertilized, and, if you know anything about pregnancy, and the regular life cycles of women — in which the body makes the decision to allow the fertilized egg to attach itself and grow, or wither and die — you can come to the conclusion that this simply doesn’t fulfill the pre-requisite for a developing life.
If, for example, I put a seed in the ground — for this example, we’ll assume it’s the seed of a tree — and it simply dies, did a tree die? Are a seed and a tree the same thing? While a seed is requisite for a tree to grow, I do not feel that they are. A seed simply contains the genetic material for a tree to develope, not an already developing tree itself. This is exactly what a fertilized egg is — it’s requisite for a child to be born, but it is not, in itself, a child. Once that seed begins to take hold of its environment and develope — grow — it becomes a “tree in progress.” When that fertilized egg attached to the uterine wall and begins to develope and grow, it becomes a “child in progress.”
Many “pro-lifers,” as they’ve been termed, in the life-or-death abortion debate are against contraception as fervently as they are abortion after a fertilized egg has attached to the uterine wall and begun to grow. But what does contraception do, in the first place? It prevents the fertilization of an egg, whether it be through killing the egg and/or sperm, or simply blocking the process of ovulation/fertilization. Is this killing a child? Many people believe so, despite the fact that a sperm, or an egg, is simply a package of information. It may be requisite for a sperm and egg to combine to create a child, but the combination itself is not necessarily a child, or even a child in developement, until that attachement (to the uterine wall) is made, and the egg begins to develope (during this time the menstrual cycle is ceased)into more than the initial batch of chromosomes.
While searching google for some information on Hermaphroditism (http://www.devbio.com/article.php?ch=17&id=266), I stumbled upon a blog which brought up an interesting point about conception altogether, which goes along with what I said earlier, concerning the developement at a child. To quote:
“As a culture, we do not actually consider miscarriages and even passed fertilized eggs to be humans worth mourning. We do not have funerals for miscarriages and we don’t baptize women’s menstrual flow just in case.”
Going by a very general judgement of traditional responses to miscarriages — though a miscarriage is nothing to scoff at, and is (as I’ve seen in my own family) taken as seriously as an abortion — as well as the prospect of a fertilized egg simply not “taking,” and being washed out during the Menstrual cycle in females, I would have to agree. How can we state that life begins at fertilization if we simply pass of these things altogether? It makes no sense, in relation to the argument.
The biggest question is now, and will always be, “Where does life begin?” Is a heart-beat, or a developed brain — with activity included (some assembly necessary) — requisite to make a definitive choice? If so, then why? If not, then why not?
But, beyond simply playing with the details, what do I feel about abortion? While I do feel that it is up to the woman who is carrying the child — as well as the man who impregnated her (as you take on the responsibility of being a parent upon that initial ejaculation) — I am against “convenience abortions.” That is, abortions which are performed simply because someone decides that they don’t want to deal with a child. While I understand that condoms are only 97-99% effective as a means of preventing pregnancy, when copulation takes place, you are taking the risk. It’s your gamble to make, and I simply don’t see how someone could not fess up to their actions and at least allow the developing life to continue developing. Once the baby is out, the un-desiring parent(s) can simply allow someone else to give the child a chance. The only case in which I would be absolutely on the side of someone who is having an abortion is if it would cause physical health risks to the woman which would leave her permanently disfigured in such a way that she could not continue to live the rest of her life in good health, or in which she would run the risk of dying.
[END]
- – - – - – - -
- – - – - – - -
Where do I think that the decision should lie? That is a tough question to answer; given the diapason of opinions in the spectrum surrounding the subject of abortion, I feel that laws should be on a lower, state level, rather than a national one. Many of the views supporting, as well as abhoring the right to an abortion concern things like “where life begins,” which is far too personal for a unanimous, national decision — even as a compromise — to be met, that would satisfy everyone involved. Laws based upon speculation — or “Rule of Man,” turned “psuedo-rule of law” — can be very, very dangerous. Once we begin to make arbitrary decisions on what goes, and what stays, based only on our own opinions, we’ll be stepping on so many feet that it will be hard not to take notice.
Stephen
I think it need to be done at the national level. Otherwise, women will leave the states that don’t allow it and go to the states that will when they want to have one.
I thnik a better question would be, what would it take to change the opinion of people who are pro-choice?
State.
National would cause WAY too many riots.
it should be outlawed….by the entire nation. so i say national.
I’ll have to vote for the state. If you live in a state that allows abortion under no or very limited circumstances, at least you’d still have a chance to legally, safely get one elsewhere. But then if it goes national, there’s always Canada.
Hi Dan. We desperatley need help. We need seeds. You have no email so I have to ask this here. Please, please go to my site and read my last entry. I and many, others would greatly appreciate it.
~~Any fool can count the seeds in an apple, but only God can count the apples in a seed.
I’m not American, so I’ll stay out of this.
But one thought, is why ask for uninformed opinions? What matters is what the US Constitution says. Let’s try to get more answers that refer to the Constitution.
This is like asking people if criminal laws should be state or federal. And I’m sure you all know the answer to that…
In my heart of hearts, I want to say this should be a state issue. After all, civil rights dealt with just that–civil rights. This is of course a national issue; it deals with the treatment of citizens of the U.S.. Abortion is different. If for no other reason than the simple fact that abortion issues deal with a woman’s right to choose what goes on inside her body. Since, the baby inside is not technically a citizen yet, it has no “civil” rights. Abortion, for those who agree with it, has never been about the child. It’s always about the mother. To them, whether they believe it or not, it is a women’s rights issue. For the opposite camp, it is a child’s rights issue. That said: unfortunately, we have opened Pandora’s Box on the abortion issue, and I am unsure about the nation’s ability to turn back. We have made it a national issue and said it is okay. This would be a difficult thing to turn back on. I agree with the state of South Dakota’s philosophy completely. The law would be just fine if it were made years ago. Unfortunately, in the end, I am not sure that it would hold up in court if it had to go.
state.
all power to the people.
Individual states, definitely. If one state won’t allow abortions, the woman can always travel to another state, right? Of course, it’d be better not to put limits on abortion at all.
state… although people brought up the idea that women will just go to another state to get an abortion, I say let them do it; since it isn’t done in my state, none of my taxpayer’s money will go to kill a child. Plus, State’s rights.
hmm, whole states rights issue really here. But I would think this, as well as marriage, may need to have a national standard. Though I hate to think the standard would be very conservative. Thank God for liberal states.
I agree with the above completely
let’s just go back to coat hanger abortions and let women die.
Erika
Although I think abortion is horribly horribly wrong, the United States is supposed to give the majority of the power to the individual states. The national government is supposed to only be in place to make sure the states do not violate the rights of their citizens. I think we give the government too much power as it is.
The decision should be made by state. If the people of a state do not want abortion to be legal except in the most extreme cases, then they should be allowed that. If the state does want it and the national government makes it illegal for the entire nation, then they loose where they should have had a choice.
I’m not pro-choice, but I think the states should have the choice, not the nat’l gov’t.
DAN DAN
DAN DAN
DAN DAN
DAN DAN
I was going to sit down and order a cappuccino in your cafe but then I realized that I quit coffee. So, do you serve green tea? How about a glass of tea with a plate of existentialism on the side?
One issue that has been brought to my attention is the “It’s a woman’s body” movement. If a woman has a right to abort “her” baby whenever she wants to, shouldn’t a man have a right to abort the baby? Not necessarily to have it physically removed from the woman’s body, but shouldn’t he have the right to legally abort all ties if he doesn’t want to pay child support for the next 18 years? How would the abortion rights people feel about that? If our country is all about equal opportunity and women and men having the same rights, shouldn’t it be extended to the very sensitive issue of children?
Personally I agree that abortion in all instances is wrong. Yeah, I know that women get raped and get pregnant. Yes, I know that sometimes a woman’s life can be in danger if she gets pregnant. As for the raping thing, I believe that God gives us the strength to do things that we normally couldn’t. Everything happens for a reason, and that reason is not so that we can kill God’s creation (even if it was an “accident” by our standards. As for the women having a risk of death, I have heard that this instance is so rare that some state’s anti-abortion laws aren’t even allowing it as a way to have an abortion. Once again, I think that God will provide and His will ought to be done. Not to mention the fact that babies as young as 21 (maybe even younger) weeks can be born and survive outside of the womb.
I am a big advocate of adoption. There are lots and lots of people out there that would love and cherish a child that are not able to have children themselves for various reasons. Why not give your baby to one of them if you can’t (or don’t want to) take care of it yourself?
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Clearly, since there is no national law governing the abortion issue, it’s something that the State legislatures are responsible for.
National…. abortion is murder. No one has the right to take away the life of someone else.
National. And it is not the woman’s body we are conserned with it is the child inside of them who’s rights are being violated.
That’s taking human rights away, what they’re doing in South Dakota. Even rape cases man. Unwanted babies floating about isn’t going to help anything. Not the child abuse rate, the foster parents rate, nothing.
I think it should be legal. First of all, GUYS DON’T GET PREGNANT. THEREFORE, THEY DO NOT EXPERIENCE CHILD BIRTH.
Obviously it doesn’t look like fun. If a guy gets raped, he’s not going to have the same problems that a girl would have. COME ON. Most of the people who are against abortion are hypocritical… If THEY were raped, I bet then they would be fine with it.
Let’s get an all-female supreme court, and a female president. Then we’ll see the shift in logic. :O
Okay, wow, I’m not trying to sound like a fool…
In regards to the post above about contraception and miscarriages: For people that do have miscarriages there is a mourning process, people give sympathy cards, etc. No, there is no funeral (there is not really much to bury, normally), but that doesn’t mean that this is just a normal every day occurance that no one gives a thought to.
As for contraception, if you don’t want to have kids then you should USE contraception. But what type? The typical birth control pill, for example, simply blocks a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine walls. So if you believe that life begins at conception (which I do), this is actually about the same as having an abortion. Condom use, however, is not. I know that some religions say that condom use is the same thing as killing a baby. So is saying to your husband “We can’t right now, it’s not a good time” knowing that if you had unprotected sex there is a possibility you might get pregnant the same thing? God gave us a sense of judgement for a reason, and if we don’t use it we are doing Him a disservice.
I don’t think that birth control pills will ever be abolished. I myself take birth control pills because my body doesn’t naturally produce enough of the hormones in them to keep me healthy, but I don’t have sex with anyone so I don’t need to worry about getting pregnant. When that times comes (in 2 months when I get married!) we will probably be using condoms because I do feel that birth control pills are a form of abortion.
*wipes brow* Now that I’m done with THAT rant…
)
“let’s just go back to coat hanger abortions and let women die.”
A law should not be undone because people are dis-obeying it. This is one of the weakest arguments I have ever heard.
oh yeah for xmusic_or_miseryx, I was raped, and thought that I was pregnant for a while, and I was going to keep the baby. It turns out I wasn’t and my body was just screwed up. But don’t say that you know the way everyone will react, because you don’t.
the pregnant teens should decide
National. It’s murder. As far as I know MURDER is illegal in EVERY state.
(((((( GRANDMA HUGS ))))))
Lori
OneAngelWaiting:
My response to miscarriages is more of a general reaction to the idea of miscarriages which occur before a woman is aware of it; in the first few weeks, most women do not know, until they miss that first period. There is a possibility, always, that after unprotected sex — or even after protected sex, as there is no sure-fire way to avoid impregnantion, save for abstaining from sex — an egg may be fertilized, attach to the uterine wall, and then die before the woman’s hormones change in such a way that it is noticeable within her body. Such eggs are washed out during the normal menstrual cycle, of course, and it’s not often that someone checks the contents of their vaginal blood for remnants of a would-be offspring.
Miscarriages that occur after the woman is aware of the developing being within them are a different story; as I said also, my family has been affected by this type of loss, and I am well aware of how serious it is taken. It’s most certainly not a laughing, or light matter. However, my opinion on miscarriage before awareness of pregnancy — and “miscarriage” is the proper, technical, and logical term for this occurance — stands as thus
The “everything happens for a reason” bit, that is constantly ejaculated into many conversations concerning saddening, or possibly disheartening experiences is a tiny bit silly, if one is trying to make a legitimate argument against something . It could just as easily be said that birth control was created as a part of the grand plan of god, just as sperm and egg uniting in spite of such preventative methods could also be attributed to divine, willed-fate, as I call it. I tend to shy away from even loose allusion to that sentiment when discussing things such as, but not limited to, abortion, because around it there can be no fruitful jibber-jabber. It’s a bit of a personal end-all.
Stephen
just another note about abortion and rape. I can sympathise with women who have been raped and become pregnant but for food for thought Ethel Waters famous jazz singer from the thirties was the product of rape. How many great men and women have been aborted. perhaps the person who would develope the cure for cancer has already been aborted.
National
It’s odd how it’s alright to abort a baby, but when a woman is murdered, it’s double homicide. Pro-choicers, get over the “it’s a woman’s body” argument. It has nothing to do with our bodies, it has to do with an innocent’s life, one that a woman and a man created, but do not own. Abortion is murder.
National.
“the pregnant teens should decide” – please tell me you are joking. I will assume you are joking. The teenager who got pregnant was not really responsible, so to put that pressure on them as to decide whether or not to keep the baby..well, not the smartest thing in the world if you want the baby to have a chance AT the world…
oneangelwaiting – that is quite a thought…birth control pills being akin to having an abortion. I will have to think about that one…
As for where I stand…I do agree that it is a National issue. And I do agree that abortion is wrong. I was a single mom for awhile, had the baby…and I would not change that. Women I know who have had abortions are emotionally scarred for life…unless they are using it as a method of birth control. In every instance there was high stress and regret. It was to the point in a few people where it onset a serious depression. I agree that unwanted babies and the abuse that follows is horrifying..
But at the same time, do we really want something so horrible used because *oops* I made a mistake??
As for rape cases….and I do not know for a fact, but it is my feeling that adoption would be an alternative. I have known of a few cases where mom kept the baby, and fell in love with it.
Nationally.
wherever its decided it should be NO
i belive it should be the state because people should have a choice when it comes to something like that but so should the state so like i said state
national.
state, and i can’t explain why. but it’s there in my hed.
I think that only those with a UTERUS should be able to decide…everyone else, opinions and all, can kiss it!
This is so easy. Tenth amendment. Abortion (along with education, gay marriage, etc) falls under that. The amendment states that these issues are to be reserved for the states. Whether you are pro-life or pro-abortion the consitution clearly identifies where the issue is to be resolved.
Make it national. Let it end once and for all.
Hey Mr. Dan..random props..?
And I’d just like to say that abortion should be legal nationwide. As others have pointed out, women should not be forced to have a child after being pregnant by rape. People may say that they’re trying to protect the babies or whatever, but how would you feel if you were a result of a rape case? How would you feel if your mother never wanted you in the first place and only had you because it’s the law? Do people seriously think the child would live a normal and healthy life coming from that background?
Also, banning abortions will definitely cause more women to get abortions illegally. Many doctors perfoming illegal operations aren’t exactly the most qualifying doctors…so, obviously, not only will the baby lose it’s life anyway, but the woman will more than likely be harmed by the abortion as well.
You might want to consider the human population as well. We are already overpopulated. Banning abortions will cause another baby boom. At school the other day, we were discussing in class how the baby boomer generation caused many problems [I won't bother to list them]. People are basically asking for more problems now. I think this country has enough issues to deal with; why add on more?
The list goes on, really…I don’t see why people are so pro-life. Most pro-lifers only have two reasons why abortion should be banned: it’s murder and violates the babies’ rights. I see this very common among Christians especially. Guess what? The Bible says that people don’t have rights, so get over it. And so many people die around the world every second, and do we do anything about it? No, we really don’t. Think about all the people, fully developed, thinking people, who we let die each and every day. We let people die. We know they’re in pain yet don’t help. We let people suffer, and here we are, complaining about how aborting an unwanted baby is murder.
It’s pathetic.
Another thing to think about [sorry, I just keep going...]: when does life really begin? Yes, life technically begins with the egg cell, but according to the government, life doesn’t begin until the baby recieves a birth certificate. Since the baby doesn’t “exist” abortion should not be labeled as murder.
Anyway, I’ll leave you along now. Sorry…I just felt strongly about that…
i believe that the problem lies at when the fetus is considered alive and what makes it alive? a heartbeat? a stimulated neuron? an indwelling soul or spirit? and at that point do we have the right to make a decision for the living object whether or not it deserves to live. why not let them grow up and make that decision themselves? when is it considered taking someones’s life? and should it ever be lawful to murder an innocent individual?
Psalm 139
For the director of music. Of David. A psalm.
1 O LORD, you have searched me
and you know me.
2 You know when I sit and when I rise;
you perceive my thoughts from afar.
3 You discern my going out and my lying down;
you are familiar with all my ways.
4 Before a word is on my tongue
you know it completely, O LORD.
5 You hem me in—behind and before;
you have laid your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
too lofty for me to attain.
7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, [a] you are there.
9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,
10 even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.
11 If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me
and the light become night around me,”
12 even the darkness will not be dark to you;
the night will shine like the day,
for darkness is as light to you.
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
Pay close attention to verses 13-16. There is a reason and a purpose for everyone who is born…whether they are called a “mistake” or not. I do not see how someone can look at the human body, not to mention the way a baby develops…and think there is not a creator involved in that.
To allow that baby to die…just because …. is killing an innocent life imho. Life is sacred…Christian or not. Rights are political…abortion has become extremely political and I do not agree with the way pro-choice, life handles some things…
But here is the bottom line. God created the life, only he should be able to take it away…
national.
“i dont’ think they should decide for the women.
its their body.”
since when was murder up for discussion? it should be a national decision. otherwise there’s no point to even discussing it. people will simply go to the closest state that has a more lenient abortion law, and get the job done. rape conception is by far a lot smaller percentage of abortion, plus, that’s why there’s the morning after pill. what about the women who get abortions because they’re “not ready for a child,” then they hop on the next guy they see?
If you’re not ready/responsible for the consequences of sex, you shouldn’t be having it. simple as that.
that’s interesting… so someone who lives in s. dakota and wanted an abortion would just have to go to a neighbouring state to get one?
national: i mean who has actually tried to get one, you need to have 400 bucks up front at least, who can afford that, without insurance and the places to get them done are so rare this area of the us makes it nearly impossible to even get one, let alone find a clinic that doesnt give you the run around and then you dont even know if the doctor will perform on you and you get counseling which is another night in a hotel cause the clinic is too far away. impossible to afford, impossible to get
neither.
you can’t legislate morality.
oh you homo sapiens…
If gay marriage is going to be at the state level, then abortion definitely should. Maybe the nation should cap the certain amount of abortions any one person can have, but they should leave it completely up to the state whether or not to take it away. Either way, though.. if a woman is determined to get an abortion, she’ll travel to a state where she can get it done! If it’s made illegal nationwide, turmoil will arise. Women will more than likely go to extreme measures and get an illegal abortion — potentional danger risk there. Making it illegal will also create a loss of jobs at abortion clinics which will cause unneeded chaos in the job industry. In a nut shell, making it illegal would be a complete mess. It is morally wrong, however it’s much more complicated than that. Legallities and mass humanlife encomass unborn fetuses in society. It’s very sad yet certain.
This was a terrible law for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion. I firmly believe that issues like this should be decided at the individual state level unless they conflict with principles or freedoms that are outlined in the constitution.
The Supreme Court made a bad decision when it said that abortion was legal based on a woman’s right to privacy without declaring from exactly what point in the constitution–or the bill of rights–that right emanated.
Regardless of whether you agree that abortion should be a right–there’s either 1-absolutely no right to privacy embedded in the constitution, which makes basing the legality of abortion on that right a total farce, or worse 2-there’s a whole lot of laws that need to be overturned because of the so-called right to privacy.
For instance, how can we say that abortion is legal because of the “right to privacy” but yet allow drug use to be prohibited? Why can a woman terminate what may or may not be a human (again, keep in mind that this argument is irrelevant to your beliefs about abortion) but we aren’t going to allow that same woman to smoke a joint in a cabin in the middle of the woods all by herself? Where’s her right to privacy now?
We stand up and fight for a woman’s right to privacy…we say that allows her to terminate a pregnancy, but that stupid broad better wear her seatbelt when she drives to the abortion clinic…she’s far too dumb to be trusted with that kind of decision…no right to privacy there.
Oh, and by the way, we’re totally okay with making it illegal for her to have oral sex with a consenting adult. No, we have tolerated lots of consensual sodomy laws…no right to privacy here either. Assisted suicide? No way, that’s not a privacy issue…it’s against the law.
So for the Supreme Court to stand up and say that something as controversial as abortion is predicated upon some right to privacy…that magically disappears whenever a different law is considered…is just about the height of stupidity.
Quite frankly, it really pisses me off when both sides of an issue want this to be federal issue. It means that neither side can stand that someone, somewhere might be doing something they don’t like. They just can’t stand not being able to tell people what to do.
We used to have a saying when people whined too much…”don’t make a federal case out of it”. Well, it just seems that people aren’t happy UNTIL we’ve made a federal case out of it…and even then it’s not really settled.
You shouldn’t care what people in other states are doing unless it directly violates something in the constitution…which the Supreme Court said abortion restrictions did….even though they didn’t say where or how.
Mike
Well I don’t think it should be restricted or illegal to begin with.
Maybe women abuse abortion, but women who do that to begin with shouldn’t have children anyway, because if they’re not responsible for themselves, how can they foster another life?
But since it is being restricted, obviously each state should be independent.
If capital punishment was a nationwide thing, a lot of people who deserve clemency will DIE.
Why should it be a national law?
I realize men are saying it should be a national law, while women are saying it should be by state. How biased. Men don’t have to carry around unwanted (I’m sorry) children for 9 excruciating months, give birth, worry about their kids constantly, etc.
Foster is used incorrectly, isn’t it.
hm.. I think abortion should be the choice of each individual person. It is the womans choice, not some random person sitting in an office throwing rules every which way.
Two arguments I’ve noticed that don’t make sense.
The first is a common one; that the fetus is a part of the women’s body. Would you consider a pair of conjoined twins to be the same person? Of course not. They have different DNA (slightly), different personalities, and two separate souls. This is the same for the child and her mother the only difference is that the mother and child are connected only by a tube and the twins are connected by (in extreme cases) an entire side of their body. To this argument a few of you may have wanted to point out that a fetus could not survive without the mother. But, coming back to the example mentioned above, many conjoined twins would also die if they were detached from their twin. But maybe no one was thinking that and I’m wasting my “breath”.
The second faulty argument comes from those that say about this topic that government shouldn’t dictate morality. First of all, this notion of government being completely apart from morality has to be completely false otherwise everything that we find to be immoral as a culture (rape, murder, stealing, etc.) would be legal since the government wouldn’t legislate on those topics. So we must realize that this dictation of morality is a good thing that’s already in place. But like all good things, too much legislation can be bad which is where I pick up my second point. The notion that a law outlawing abortion is a dictation of morality is false since just about 100% of the world thinks it’s wrong to kill for convience. The topic being discussed is whether or not abortion is essesially the murder of a living child or the removal of the mother’s unneeded flesh. Whether the growth is human life or a lump of flesh. For anyone to decide that abortion is wrong is for them to admit that it’s the murder of an innocent child. Since murder is illegal so too would be abortion.
p.s. I was trying to make my point without alienating anyone by bringing my own beliefs into it so sorry if anyone felt that way.
on a national level, as it is too important of an issue. It also would be counter-productive if you could just drive to the nearest state if abortion in your particular circumstance is illegal in yours.
I’m just tired of hearing about scared 12 and 13 year old girls going on the internet and looking up “home abortion” methods (eg, a coathanger) and half killing themselves because the state they live in requires parental permission/notification in order to get an abortion.
National
State.
national.
> I think it should be left to the states, which you know also means regional influence. Almost, but not quite community to community.
Prior to Roe vs. Wade, abortion was decided in the states. I think the first step is to return it to the states and then to work to outlaw it nation wide. However, I personally think this is a national issue. Either we as Americans believe that life is important and needs to be protected or we do not. It is not the child’s fault their mother does not love him or want her. Why should they die because of the act of a rapist or the irresponsibility of the mother (and father)?
We have an obligation to protect the most vulnerable in our society and in America no one is more at risk of being killed than a child in a mother’s womb especially a black child. Black children are aborted at 40% more frequently than white children in Philadelphia. Planned parenthood started as a Eugenics program to eliminate the undesirable of society and Magaret Sanger would be proud of how “well” it is performing its orginal mandate.
state level
Neither. The state and the nation can’t and don’t limit men’s bodies, so they should have no right to ours. These kinds of situations, the ones where abortion may be a solution, are generally way too deep and dark to fit into some guideline or limitation set forth by old men. There are too many necessary exceptions that would need to be made, and as against abortion as I am personally, I totally understand the sad fact that women will find a way to abort their babies if they are that desperate, and most of the time these are desperate situations. We don’t want the girls in this country being forced into back alleys and into illegal situations just so that they can do what they need to with their own lives and their own bodies.
i think that a doctor should be alowd to deny giving someone an abortion, but i don’t think it shold be illegal.
To me pregnancy is wonderful and its a feeling all women should experiance…i am totally against having an abortion because its a little life inside of me unless i was brutally raped and for me i couldnt give the kid away to adoption after looking at that face after carrying it for 9 months…The problem there also is having that horrible memory of why that child is there……so i think its should be a state decision for the simple fact women if they really had to because of a bad experiance(not a petty one like its your ex boyfriends or you just were not ready for children cause that just makes you heartless irresponsible and you need to be put on BC) they could go somewhere and have it done. Actually if it was up to me…i would have all the women vote on it and see what they think…but since its not state would be the next best thing.
national because if it’s illegal in one state someone could just try to the next state over where it is legal to have an abortion.
I’m leaning toward state.
Hmmm… that gets tricky. But I would have to say we should stick with a federal ruling and law on abortion.
Individual?
That doesn’t elevate or sanctify the choice …it’s murdering an innocent life if an individual does it and it doesn’t make it better or worse if a state or nation sanctions it. An individual can can lie, cheat and steal. Laws apply to individuals and there ought to be a law against killing innocent life.
A woman’s body?
An unborn child is not a ‘woman’s body’ …a fingernail is.
When you’re pregnant no one asks “How’s your body” they ask “How’s the baby.” If they ask about your body, it’s because they’re concerned about the support system for the child.
It will go state, but, like drinking ages and driving laws, the federal government will use its long arm (i.e. threats of revoked funding) to force the states into a national standard.
national. I believe that will actually be the basis of any Supreme Court ruling. It will go “this was settled on a national level and no statelaw can overrule a federal court ruling.” Really it is the same concept as legalized marijuana. It is illegal on the federal level so it doesn’t matter what CA legislates concerning medical marijuana. The DEA and FBI will still have juristiction to arrest and charge anybody using it.
national
National is going to end up with a more balanced result. You can’t stop abortion by making it illegal. Sad but true. The best thing is to take a rational approach to it.
i think it should be dealt with at a national level because even if one state bans it, the person who wants it could just go to another state to get the abortion.
I would say states, but then you could just go to another state that allows it and have it done…so it would be kind of pointless
Really, I think it should be up to the woman.
National because you shouldnt be allowed to kill a person….its just as bad as murder and it’s disgusting how they do it…
“Few issues in the field of health have evoked such controversy as the subject of induced abortion. As a result, both abortion legislation and provision of services have been dominated more by people’s attitudes and emotions than by public health considerations.”
Previously — last night — I had a quick two-post discussion with someone among the comments in this entry about abortion. In their initial post, they said that endangerment to the woman’s body is so unlikely that some states are not even allowing that as a justification for abortions. Obviously, as this case on late-term abortion due to complications that would endanger, or end the life of the woman, that is true.
Last night I looked up a handful of statistics, to see how common endangerment due to childbirth was, as well as what I could dig up about the safety of abortions. What I found was as follows; citations are included:
“The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 11 times as high as that associated with abortion”
citation: Ibid, through: http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
- – - -
“Approximately 50 million abortions occur worldwide annually. Of these, 20 million are obtained illegally.”
citation: http://www.uah.edu/colleges/liberal/womensstudies/ Reproductive_Rights_factsheet.doc
- – - -
“Death following legal abortion induced in appropriately equipped and staffed medical settings is very rare, with rates ranging from zero to two deaths per 100,000 procedures in the 13 countries for which accurate statistics are available (3). The aggregate mortality rate for these countries is 0.6 deaths per 100,000 legal abortions; this rate is lower than that of tonsillectomy and makes induced abortion about ten times safer than pregnancy carried to term.”
citation: http://www.gfmer.ch/Books/Reproductive_Health/Induced_Abortion.html
- – - –
“Maternal Morality ratio, 2000, Lifetime risk of maternal death; 1 in 2500″
— citation: http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/usa_statistics.html
- – - -
“Estimates for 2000 suggested 529,000 maternal deaths worldwide with an average maternal mortality ratio of 400 per 100,000 live births, and accounted for 173 countries with 99% of global births. However, 62 countries (27% of global live births) had no national data available, and maternal mortality estimates for those countries were developed using a regression model based on a set of explanatory country-specific variables that are available for nearly all countries in the world [3]. An alternative model based also on country-specific variables was also proposed using the same data set [11].” citation: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/5/131
- – - –
Looking at a handful of other reports, the maternal — not infant — mortality rate in the US is small, around some 7.9-9.9 in every 100,000 births, as of right now. However, it still exists. If this isn’t reason enough to request an amendment that guarantees the safety of the mother, not only of the child, then I don’t know what is. If aborting an undeveloped fetus is taking away an innocent life, then allowing a mother to potentially die — a life that has already developed, and is currently in the making, rather than one that hasn’t even finished it’s own physical developement — must certainly be one as well? I would hope so; if not, that might just be the worst type of hypocripsy I’ve felt in a while. Just because it’s not commonplace doesn’t mean that we should simply brush it off as though those lives mean nothing. That’s an arbitrary decision if ever there was one.
A point was brought up that a child can be extracted in a premature form, and survive at as young as 21 weeks. I’ve found information stating that: “Prematurity was formerly a major cause of infant deaths. Improved medical and nursing techniques have increased the survival of premature infants. A greater chance of survival is associated with increasing length of the pregnancy. Of babies born at 28 weeks, approximately 80% survive.” (citation: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001562.htm). According to other websites, such as “babyzone.com,” premature infants at a weight of less than 501-750 grams — common among premies before 28 weeks gestation (possibly around roughly 23-25) — have a 58% percent chance of survival upon extraction, if the extraction itself is successful.
How early is too early?
In general, babies born after 24 to 25 weeks of gestation are mature enough to survive, although they will need a prolonged period of intensive care. Babies born at less than 23 weeks of gestation are usually not mature enough to survive. However, in addition to age, other factors play a role (usually because babies with these characteristics are more mature) and increase the chances that a premature baby will do well, including being female and African American. A premature babies size also can influence how well he will do, with larger babies doing better than smaller babies. (citation: http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/newborn/premature_babies.html)
As a pregnancy goes into it’s later terms, I’ve found — through more research — that the risks associated with removal of the child, both through abortion and emergency cesarian section or early dilation for ease of extraction, increase, especially if the mother is in immediate danger to begin with. I’ve also found no information whatsoever claiming the the rate of survival among premature infants early than 24 weeks of age is high enough to constitute removal at all. Doing so only seems to allow for one to watch their child die, which is probably more horrible than not being able to see it.
Extraction before 13 weeks gestation seems like the best overall idea, because there are, in fact, mothers who may be in danger if the fetus is allowed to grow beyond that point, and extracting it at that time is guaranteed to only cause more pain, emotionally and otherwise, to the child. Before having me, my mother had complications with an earlier pregnancy, which resulted in a “forced miscarriage/abortion.” I will not detail it; that’s her personal information, not mine. Suffice to say that the complications with that particular pregnancy could have resulted in her death; I would hate to think that my mother was going to be included in statistics surrounding Maternal Mortality in the United States. She didn’t WANT to give up the child — obviously, as she had me by choice — but she had to in order to ensure her health.
Personally, I want to be able to continue to ensure such health. If interest groups happen to turn this into a situation in which the “rule of god” determines what does and does not happen, I’m going to be rolling in my grave after I pass; while a majority of peoples within the US are probably religious, there are many more who do not think that religion, which is faithful speculation (not as a demeaning term, but as a truthful one) at best, should determine the outcome of something which we know that we can prevent. I don’t care about allowing “convenience abortions.” I’ve already said so, and I am sticking to that. I don’t think that the potential for life — I do not view developing fetus’ as completed life, yet — should be wasted so easily. However, I’m not going to put people already in existance at risk and not allow them an option to save their own lives for the sake of something that “could be.”
Stephen
The ‘rule of god’ plays a small part in the reason I’m against abortion. If there was no god I would still be against abortion.
Why would you possibly be against abortion where the child will not survive if removed early, and the mother would die if it was allowed to progress into later stages of gestation, or be born? I’m not sure that I see how one could trade off one life for another; it’s not nearly as simple as it seems to be made out to be.
Stephen
I’ll settle gladly for separate laws in separate states. That’s mainly because I fear greatly what a national law would turn out to be. But heck, I think separate is the way to go anyway. The fewer federal laws the better.
Chickawhatever, I cannot believe a real live human would say that. That kid has as much a right to life as you or I, and we shouldn’t give a damn who the dad is( the bass did a swear!)
The national government has zero authority on this issue, it is totally a states issue. The Roe case was a total lie, and should have been over turned years ago. For those who think we should decide whether or not abortion is right are incredibly naive. We can’t decide what is right or wrong. We can only make laws that protect the innocent and condemn the evil. This has got to be a states issue.
Can I still vote for the Cannibalistic emo whatsicalled name for the mascot?
The bass
I say national law. I know that a lot of girls that are like in 9th grade get pregnant around my area and they think about getting an abortion but really I’m totally against abortion. It’s not the baby’s fault that you went out and got pregnant and decided you did’nt want it…maybe it’s not like that but all you need to do is put the baby up for adoption instead of cutting it’s life off.
The state. We need to get away from giving the National government the power to legislate our lives.
Power to the People.
neither! It should be decided on a PERSONAL level. The only decision the government should make is to allow partial birth abortions or not. If you dont like/ want an abortion- DONT HAVE ONE. Why the hell do you care if some fetus across the united states was chopped up into a bajillion pieces? Its not your business at ALL. If you want one- have one. If you are so adamant against it, dont have one, and if it upsets you that much, dont associate with women who have had one.
I think that a national ruling would be a big mistake. The less we have in the hands of the federal government, the better. It should be a atate ruling
i dont think it should be determined either by the state or the government. But thats just me.
i dont’ think they should decide for the women.
Quote “its their body. not the men’s
but if need it be. state
so SOME women could get an abortion.
C’MON! WHAT IF IT WAS A RAPISTS CHILD!?!?!
hmmm. i wouldn’t want to have that kid.”
Give the baby up for adoption. Its not the baby’s fault…
realistically I would say state…. yet Ideally I would say national
It is a sad thing when a little baby must die, so that we don’t have to interrupt our life style; and we justify this infanticide by telling ourselves, “it’s just a blob of tissue.”
Others say they just couldn’t brign themselves to part with the child by giving it up for adoption. How strange that they can’t give the baby up, but they are willing to kill it before it ever has a chance at life!
We have fallen, morally, as far, I think, as we can fall.
It needs to be done at the national level, and it needs to be illegal, just as murder is ilegal everywhere on the planet.
state
State. I”m against abortion and everything don’t get me wrong but you need to look at how the child was conceived. If the state has a high rape rate than make an exception for rapes. In south dakota (for I’m a south dakotan) the law allows abortion in the case of teh health of the mother and in some cases of rape I believe, I haven’t had a lot of chance to read up on it.
But nonetheless. State level
I think that constitutionaly it is a state issue- but in an ideal world we’d make it federal by making an ammendment
National….because if they make it illegal in one state, everyone will just go to the next state to do it.
I’m against abortion, so I think national on this point. even if it’s a rapist’s child, it would still grow up to be a real person. A real person can do a world of good to the world. even if they just influenced one person for good, it should be worth it. ^_^
well… I do think that the government shouldn’t rule our lives though, so don’t take me like that… things like capital punishment I think should be all over the nation. so… whatever. I’m not the president anyway. and I’m glad I’m not.
http://spaces.msn.com/loscedros17/
Thank you for the cappuccino !
Grazie.
National.
National! Comment back
Definetely national. The Supreme Court interprets the laws set by the Legislative branch, I’m sure you know that, so how could states go against what is law?
Different states can interpret law and apply it to their own needs can’t they, but they cant go against the ideal law set by Congress. If states begin to nullify laws on their own then what good is law on the federal level?
Definitely national.
I think by State, then individual rights can be chosen by simply going where it is o.k. It really should be the woman that chooses. It is such a personal life altering decision. This is a hard question.
it is very interesting that you bring up capital punishment and abortion in the same post, since both involve what would be (arguably in the case of abortion) terminating human life.
since the legality of a woman’s right to the procedure is a guaranteed national right, the scope of that right is a decision that needs to be left to the states. every state has a different demographic, and therefore the people who live in those states need to be free to vote for laws that suit their particular demographic makeup.
as ChIcKaRoO831 says, there need to be some places left where a woman can seek a safe, legal abortion. rape and incest may not endanger the physical life of the mother, but could emotionally scar her for life, and it is not a stretch to say she might take it out on any resulting child.
and for those who have said that one should be forced to carry a baby to term when that child is conceived in violence or incest have obviously never been raped by a stranger or by a relative. and i hope they always get to remain that protected and naive…
individual state. its her own body, i think she can do what she wants with it. i dont like how this ended up illegal probably because of religious issues, right? or i might be wrong.
unless there would be some way to stop people who live in one state from getting an abortion in another, i would have to think that it should be a national level decision, due to the fact that outlawing in one state and having it legal in another would undermine the decision of the first state, and could simply be avoided by going on a short “vacation”. unless the states had the power to keep that from happening, it would be pointless to pass such a law.
flat out, this is going to have a huge controversy, issue sof morality always do… some people may not consider it an issue of morality, but all it really takes is one person who calls it a moral issue and everyone else in turn must deal with it as a moral issue… this is a life, by all counts, from the video “the scream” by that doctor, now he won’t do abortions since then… since he saw that this child, ot fetus as someof you will prefer, could feel what he was doing as he ended its life… what about that then… and what of the millions of other cases, what is the difference between that a leaving a baby in a dumpster, or what about taking a pregnant female dog, and aborting its children, if that were done it would be considered dog abuse… but what is the difference…. there is not one. this is still a life, and life is always a precious thing, whether it is born or not. it is to be treasured… and yet in our society it is commonly disregarded… humiliating and disgusting…. it makes me both sad and sick.., life is not fair.
Each state. I’ll give up my choice when bush gets pregnant!
national level
State.
Hmm.. not really sure.
[ariana]
It’s such a touchy issue because there is so much involved in it. If you can’t be on birth control and buy condoms, I don’t think you should have sex at all and that saves u from pregnancy.
Abortions are needed for medical reasons (will kill mom, etc), and I think those reasons should be nation wide… Rape and incest laws should be discussed… But I think abortions shouldn’t be legal for any other reasons. So, nation wide laws, not state.
I am against abortion. When I was in my 20′s, I had a 6-month old baby, that I had not weened yet from my breast. I was hospitalized for my schizophrenia in a mental institution, where it was later disscussed that what they had originally thought I could use was a place to stay, because I had become transient with my baby, not that there was anything wrong with me that they could help, pschologically. I was pregnant at 9 months along, in the hospital, when I went into labor. They were shocked. They had thought if they told me with enough disincentive that I was not pregnant, that believing it would be enough of a placebo for not going through labor to have a baby. That is not logical, but, you see, the social workers were the ones who came up with it. It was one of those similar experiments that failed in Nazi-Germany for the same reasons. When I went into the Medical-Surgical Ward at the hospital, they took a long pair of shears and cut off my baby’s arms in- vitro. The baby was then born, after they had left me alone, in flight when I rebuked the Devil in the Name of Jesus Christ. The bleeding was stopped. The baby lived, but I was kept from seeing him. Much later I saw the child playing. I prayed for him to get his arms back on. Later, I was presented with the arms that has miraculously not decayed. I prayed that they would be Transferred in the Name of Jesus Christ and to attach themselves to his torso, believing when the arms disappeared from my sight, that they had been replaced to him, and usable to him. I have had many, many children since then, and, at times, a doctor, nurse, or social worker has come to me with abortion as a answer. In my case, however, they know I have several miraculous alternatives. Jesus has the answer.