Now
Fair
10°
High
32°
Low
24°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Opinion > Columns
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Local View: Protection for unborn transcends religion

Comments 37 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By JENNIFER GUTIERREZ

Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 - 12:05:48 am CDT

When Bishop Oscar Romero was appointed archbishop of El Salvador in 1977, the political elites were thrilled. Three thousand people were murdered each day in El Salvador, but the conservative bishops who elected Archbishop Romero as well as the politicos and the wealthy saw him as a quiet academic, a timid man who would not interfere with their efforts to crush attempts for reform among the poor. In fact, when Romero was installed as archbishop, his homily reassured them of their choice by indicating that the church should be neutral and “keep to the center, watchfully, in the traditional way. …”

Three weeks later, Romero’s position of neutrality changed when his good friend, Father Rutilio Grande, a Jesuit priest who preached against the murders and human rights abuses, exploitation and other injustices in El Salvador, was murdered. Romero recognized that in the face of human rights abuses, there is no neutral. It was his duty, both as a Catholic and as a human being to speak against the human rights abuses and be a voice for the most vulnerable in their society.

Romero’s example is particularly relevant to a critical human rights issue that has once again been thrust to the forefront of our national consciousness as the presidential election nears — the human rights of the unborn. Some have framed the rights of the unborn as a Catholic or religious issue. As Romero exemplified through his words and actions, the protection of human rights is neither. It is a moral issue.

Story Photo
Jennifer Gutierrez
Call for columnists

In the next few weeks, the current panel of 12 community columnists will be ending its run.

The Journal Star invites readers to submit sample columns of 800 words or less in application to become a future community columnist. The columns can be on any subject.

To submit a sample column, e-mail it to oped@journalstar.com or mail it to Victoria Ayotte Brown, interactivity editor, Lincoln Journal Star, P.O. Box 81689, Lincoln, NE 68501.

It is certain that Catholics and others are compelled to speak for the rights of the unborn, but that does not mean that particular religious beliefs are being forced upon others in our “pluralistic society” as Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden suggested on “Meet the Press” this month.

Some say unborn children cannot have legal rights because they have not yet been born. They are therefore undeserving of human rights. Legal rights granted by a state and human rights are two very different things. Human rights are not earned or granted. Each individual possesses human rights, merely by virtue of being human. Science has proved beyond a doubt that unborn children are human beings.

Human beings are not only entitled to human rights such as political and religious freedom, and socioeconomic rights such as housing, food and health care, but they also have freedoms from things. Human beings should be free from oppression, free from torture and free from being killed. These principles were agreed upon in the 1949 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The problem is that children, especially the unborn, are the weakest members of our society and have the potential to be the most abused.

The earliest research on children’s rights dates from the first century A.D. In early Roman times, children were many times seen not as gifts but, immediately after birth, abandoned in the street either to die, be devoured by animals, or sold as slaves. While some think that our society has advanced since then, the fact that presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama consistently opposed Illinois legislation that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a “born alive infant” entitled to legal protection shows we still have a long way to go.

In stark contrast, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin gave birth to a son with Down syndrome, whom she referred to as a gift, in an age when each year in the United States between 84 percent and 91 percent of unborn children with Down syndrome are aborted. In a nation where we believe deeply in the principle that “all men are created equal,” it is a tragic affront to the human race that we abort children whom we deem to have less value than the rest of society.

A society of love, a culture of life, begins with the knowledge and understanding that every life, from its inception, is precious and sacred.

Once we embrace a culture of love, we learn that it does not negate the rights or privileges that we as Americans hold dear. We can work passionately and successfully for equal rights for women without aborting more than 700 babies a year in Lancaster County.

Archbishop Oscar Romero was assassinated on March 24, 1980, for fighting for the human rights of the most vulnerable. It is imperative that regardless of religious or political affiliation, we follow his example and find a way to create a culture of love that protects the human rights of even our weakest and smallest citizens.

Jennifer Gutierrez is a strategic communications consultant specializing in work with Nebraska’s Hispanic market.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Columns > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
MarkyMark wrote on September 27, 2008 7:01 am:
" Why is it the all-powerful "Pro-Life party", who had all the power to overturn Roe V Wade from 2001-2007, didn't life a finger. If you hadn't noticed, it's a non-issue with them.

If you pay attention, you will see that "one-issue" voting keeps electing these D+ students into the most powerful office in our great country. We need to elect some intelligence, and real ethics back into the White House. "

 Edgar Pearlstein wrote on September 27, 2008 7:30 am:
" Not true that the issue "transcends religion". For the objection to abortion is tied into the idea of the "soul"--a purely religious notion.

(Incidentally, the Bible defines human life and the entrance of the soul in terms of breathing: For example, Genesis 2:7: "and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul".)

As for "science has proved...": Sure, BIOLOGICALLY, a fetus is human. So is a piece of sloughed-off skin! But a biological definition need not be the same as a moral or legal definition "

 TWP wrote on September 27, 2008 10:11 am:
" Very good points, Jennifer. Thank you for having the courage to present them. "

 Clarity Truheart wrote on September 27, 2008 10:20 am:
" Jennifer Gutierrez makes a distinction between "human rights" and "legal rights". And this is a valid distinction. However she does not pursue the distinction to its logical conclusion. There are two realms of responsibility evident: That of government and that of personal morality or ethics. The first is the responsibility of the State, the second is primarily the responsibility of the individual. The State under our form of government is, and was intended to be, basically amoral. Its function is to assure order in society and to promote the public weal. Thus the State makes certain activities such as murder, theft, and speeding illegal and fosters institutions and programs such as schools, orphanages, and the Social Security System. The State's motivation for these actions is not (and should not be, under our system) someone's idea of a moral code, but rather the knowledge that without such strictures and institutions society would not be maintainable or the commonweal diminished. The government's definition of when an organism obtains the rights of a living citizen is developed within this framework. This in no way invalidates one's personal idea of when these rights ensue or when or if a pregnancy should be terminated. Individual citizens and aggregations of citizens, such as religious institutions, have the right to apply any moral or ethical code they choose to their own belief systems and actions, as long as they do not transgress the boundaries set up by the State. For instance, a claim in court that your religion's ethics demand that you speed will not get you out of the fine imposed. Arguments like Ms. Gutierrez' blur the line between the proper function of the State and the responsibility of the individual. The State is not, and should not be, the arbiter of morality. "

 Risa wrote on September 27, 2008 1:57 pm:
" wait wait wait.. did she actually just say "We can work passionately and successfully for equal rights for women without aborting more than 700 babies a year in Lancaster County." ???!?!?

eliminating a woman's choice takes you out of the running for "Women's Rights Advocate," Jennifer. "

 Brian wrote on September 27, 2008 2:52 pm:
" Edgar . . your logic is flawed. A piece of skin is "human" but not a human being. Big difference. A sperm has 23 chromosomes as does an egg. When they come together they form a single celled zygote with 46 chromosomes (the same number as you and me). Immediately the zygote starts producing humanly specific proteins and enzymes. It begins to grow and divide, and it does so independently, meaning the mother does not direct its growth . . . it does so on its own. It then implants itself in the uterine wall where it will continue to grow and take the unmistakable shape of a human being. The piece of skin you speak of, if implanted in the uterine wall would simply rot and be discarded. The argument that an unborn child is no different than some skin has no scientific basis and has been proven wrong many times over. I am shocked that the pro-choice side still even tries to use it.

Also you can be pro-life without discussing the existence of a soul. Following your logic to its conclusion, anyone who does not believe there is a soul would be justified in killing anyone.

Lastly, you are mistaken in what you say about Gen. 2:7. It is referring to God breathing the breath of life into Adam. At that point Adam specifically (who according to the Bible was not born but created from the dust of the earth) became a living soul. It was not referring to all men or all of mankind. "

 Greg wrote on September 27, 2008 6:07 pm:
" Brian, your statement that "anyone who does not believe there is a soul would be justified in killing anyone" is patent nonsense. The law makes murder a crime, and if you break that law, the State doesn't ask if you believe in the soul before prosecuting you. Nor does the State have to harbor a belief in the soul's existence to pass such a law. You would do well to read Clarity Truheart's post above. "

 peb wrote on September 27, 2008 9:54 pm:
" I find it interesting that most religions, people, etc., who plead for human rights for the "weakest and smallest citizens" also, then want to deny basic human rights and civil rights for some of these citizens. I gave birth to my daughter and consider her a gift from God, and yet, because of who she is, has been denied some basic human and civil rights. "

 Response to Risa wrote on September 28, 2008 3:10 am:
" As a matter of fact, Risa, one of the premier "Woman's Rights Advocates," Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a champion of the womens rights movement in the US in the 19th century (who by the way was in the company of such great women as Susan B. Anthony and Julia Ward Howe), said: "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." In fact, Stanton believed motherhood to be the "'ultimate right of women'" (Suzanne Schnittman, Ph.D), and it is frankly awful that this sentiment is not shared by all women. Jennifer is right on the mark, and she is a tremendous advocate for women.

Scott "

 Sean1 wrote on September 28, 2008 9:59 am:
" First of all Ms. Gutierrez your Roman history is waaaaaaaay off. Read a book. If you want a prime example of infanticide you should look at the Spartans and how they handled the inspection of newborns.

Second of all..the Catholic church which is so enamored of "human rights" has been one of the worst offenders in history. Endorsing the wholesale slaughter of human beings as their version of the "Will of God".

Lastly...if you peruse recent headlines you'll find that the Church's lately exposed "love of children" has resulted in several million dollar settlements concerning sexual abuse by the clergy. Not a great reccomendation for the opions of the organization wouldn't you say?

Here's something Roman for you. Especially appropriate since the Vatican is located in the remains of the Rome you slandered:

Magna res est vocis et silentii temperamentum.
(The great thing is to know when to speak and when to keep quiet"

Seneca the Younger "

 AGF wrote on September 28, 2008 10:17 am:
" it is unfortunate that Ms. Gutierrez has chosen to so crassly attempt to use the right-wing assassinations of Archbishop Romero and Father Grande to further the partisan gain of the U.S. anti-choice movement. It is a bit of a stretch to do so and quite frankly, she should not be very proud of this piece.

seems to me that this piece is clearly an election-season attempt to pander to what Ms. Gutierrez herself would refer to as "the Hispanic Market"
(really? people are a "market"? I don't see us as commodities, but she sees us as something to be manipulated "strategically", according to her own bio blurb) "

 Risa wrote on September 28, 2008 1:55 pm:
" Scott, it would be really great if you - as a man - refrain from telling a woman what sentiments she should or should not hold with respect to motherhood.

I do not consider motherhood to be my "ULTIMATE right," which makes it sound like "my only right" or "my responsibility." My rights are the same as anyone else's. The ability to make the choice to be a mother or not is part of respecting all rights of all women. Using "women's rights" as a cover for a deeply conservative project to strip away a woman's control over her own body is reprehensible. "

 Jeff wrote on September 28, 2008 3:06 pm:
" The mention of the born alive infant issue, in the same paragraph of the infanticide in ancient Rome (if that's true), is a blatant partisan political ploy, and nothing more. The issue is more complicated than that, and has to do with Obama'a support of federal legislation that was exactly the same. He did not support the State's bill because he felt the federal bill was sufficient, and the federal bill had a neutrality clause, which in effect made it clear that it wasn't trying to undermine the Roe vs. Wade decision. This won't make those that are anti-abortion feel better about Obama, but it is a more truthful explanation of the position. In other words, the oversimplified way it is written in this article basically is a mischaracterization (aka lie). "

 BullHauler wrote on September 28, 2008 3:41 pm:
" MarkyMark, the overturn of Roe V. Wade wouldn't eliminate abortions. It would return the issue to each state to decide if it wanted them taking place or not. It is so sad and sickening to see all of you defending abortions as "the right to choose" or "reproductive freedom" or "a women's issue"--- how about a woman's "right to choose" to NOT engage in the behavior that leads to pregnancy? Why does everyone act as though promiscuous sex is a need akin to breathing?? How about using birth control, which is readily, and cheaply available? I became pregnant (unplanned) at 18. Not only did I "choose" to give birth to and keep my daughter, I "chose" to quit college in favor of working 60 hours a week to pay our bills, rather than living off public assistance of every kind, which I was actually encouraged to do! My girl was born at 8 months- perfectly healthy. But the "pro-choice" candidate Barack Obama would ensure that it would have been completely legal for me to have her little head incised and the contents removed- murdered!! rather than completing her delivery. 18 years later, my daughter was salutatorian of her class with accomplishments miles long and is now attending college. One final thought, what about a MAN'S "right to choose"? My husband's ex-fiance told him AFTER the fact that she had aborted his child. Years later, we were never able to have children together and he lives with the agony that his only baby was murdered. But it was her reproductive freedom, thank God. It's just so gross to hear everyone defending abortion as though it's a right. Unless there was a rape involved, there are a lot of choices made. A society that casually accepts the destruction of the most helpless humans (and if the Democrat gets in, at any stage of pregnancy and even AFTER birth) really doesn't have much potential for further advancement. It was good of Jennifer Gutierrez to mention Rome. The world's greatest societies haven't been conquered by outside forces, they have rotted from within. "

 peb wrote on September 28, 2008 6:32 pm:
" Please explain:

"A society that casually accepts the destruction of the most helpless humans (and if the Democrat gets in, at any stage of pregnancy and even AFTER birth) . . ." "

 yeah right wrote on September 28, 2008 7:37 pm:
" I have to disagree with Jennifer when it comes to religion and morality being an issue of protecting a fetus. Here in Lincoln, going to a catholic school for 12yrs, I can recall back to 2nd grade when are class had a contest to see who could make the best anti-abortion poster. The prize: the poster was to be shown at a high profile anti-abortion walk. Every election year I can remember we had fliers being passed around as a priest walked around the room saying the lesser of two evils would be the one person against killing children, what about the issues for the living? Eleventh grade I was late to religion class with a friend in the class, are punishment was to go to planned parenthood and protest the women going in as we sang songs about love for Jesus. I never felt so awful in my life as other fellow students kept shouting and ranting "anti-abortion" slogans as tears streaked women faces and are priest/teacher held a bible and kept a smile.

I wish this issue were abolished so I didn't have to listen and read all of these fanatical ideals on when life begins and who's right or wrong between religion and government. I'd like to know where protester's think they will be protesting from when they get rid of all abortion clinics. It won't be a nice clinic with 700 babies inside to be used for science, but the county dump with around the same number for compost heap. "

 Margie wrote on September 28, 2008 11:07 pm:
" The idea that a fertilized ovum is a human being with a soul and full human rights is exactly a theological idea. There are numerous other beliefs within Christianity as well as other major religions. For some, independent human status comes at 3 weeks gestation, or at "quickening" (16-20 weeks), or at the point when the fetus can live outside the womb (about 26 weeks), or at the point when the baby breathes "the breath of life." Pretending that some opinion other than the author's means lack of love for babies or indifference to human life is insulting and arrogant. The author has a right to her opinion. So do the rest of us. "

 Greg wrote on September 29, 2008 6:51 am:
" Question for Bullhauler: You state that abortion is murder. In fact, by your definition, abortion would be premeditated murder. If, for the sake of argument, you had the power, would you prosecute women undergoing an abortion (and also, presumably, the medical practitioners effecting the act) as murderers subject to the punishments for premeditated murder, which range up to the death penalty? If not, why not? "

 Josh wrote on September 29, 2008 9:31 am:
" One simple way to prevent abortion would be to promote birth control. Too bad the Catholics are against that. "

 Nina wrote on September 29, 2008 9:48 am:
" All God's children are precious, whether they are here where we can cuddle them, or in the womb. I remind, that after birth, they are still God's precious children and should be treated as such. That is why the safe haven law should apply to all who need it, no matter what age of child. Too many unwed mothers today try to keep the child, when they are unable to financially or emotionally take on parenting. So many problems would be solved if they would give up the child for adoption. There are many would-be parents waiting and waiting, and with today's 'open' adoptions, it no longer means never knowing what became of the baby for the mother. Too many fathers neglect to take responsibility, and are not supportive of this budding life. This is as big a problem as any; if DNA testing confirms the identity of the reluctant father, he should be required to take ongoing responsibility in solid ways if the mother keeps the baby, or be required to join the military, to be taught how to be a man. Too many times abortion, which is an awful thing, is deemed to be the only concern. Society needs to up the expectations of the parents, and care for the children better once they're here. "

 Zoomie wrote on September 29, 2008 9:50 am:
" First, the Bible clearly says a fetus is NOT a full human with equal rights to the mother (in Exodus; kill the mother, its murder but kill the fetus in womb, its a fine).
Second, the Obama vote is pure smear! He voted against a law which included restrictions on the basic right to an abortion, and which was not needed as it was ALREADY IL law to make every effort to keep a "born alive" baby alive (and an extensive Dept of Public Health investigation following one complaint by one anti-abortion nurse concluded she lied, and no evidence could ever be found such a killing had ever occurred). Additionally, while the law's supporters always claimed it was NOT a Roe v Wade limitation, in 2006 the IL legislature stripped out EVERY section of their proposed law EXCEPT the "born alive" section and brought it to a vote. Guess who voted against it? Yep, the anti-abortion legislators! Why? Because it WAS an attack on basic abortion rights, under the disguise of "protecting" supposedly-born children! So color me unimpressed with a "Christian" who smears and deceives to achieve results here! "

 What next wrote on September 29, 2008 10:18 am:
" I keep hearing all this about abortion/choice/murder/birth control and only notice the hypocrisy. Soon, the sperm and egg cells in a lab will have rights. If life begins at conception, then all those fertilized implants are human. If so, and one dies, isn't that murder? Let's just get out of a woman's life. If she is going to go through the pain and anguish of having an abortion, that is her decision. And by the way, the argument that the aborted could have been the next person to cure cancer or save a life is rebutted by the face that same person could be the next Jack the Ripper or Adolf Hitler. "

 Ignignokt wrote on September 29, 2008 10:31 am:
" Josh wrote, "One simple way to prevent abortion would be to promote birth control. Too bad the Catholics are against that."

Okay, so that might explain the pregnant Catholics...but what about the rest of society that doesn't follow the Catholic religion? Are they not free to utilize birth control? I have a hard time believing that people aren't getting the message with all of the contraceptive commercials in the media. They're getting the message, but they're ignoring it because they know that an 'oops baby' can be quickly and easily disposed of.

With the recent passage of the 'safe haven' law, there should be NO reason to have an abortion in Nebraska. There are a lot of parents out there who can't produce children, and would LOVE to adopt one. "

 Pro-Born wrote on September 29, 2008 11:52 am:
" I think we need to get our nose out of the Privacy area. The choice of a woman to have or not have an abortion is none of our business. This is between her doctor and herself and she knows her circumstances better than we do.
We need to change our tune, lets worry about those that are here. In poor areas, women have no access to sex education, birth control, or health checks and as a result most children die within the first year.
This is the real tragedy "

 Huh wrote on September 29, 2008 12:28 pm:
" I don't get how the Catholic church can say No to abortion, because the fetus is a human with a soul, but should the child die during birth or be stillborn not allow that same human with a soul to be buried since it wasn't baptized. Which is it? "

 Randy wrote on September 29, 2008 12:44 pm:
" You can't have your cake and eat it too. Women have equal rights to their body as a man does, correct? So wouldn't it save time, money, and bruised pride to let the woman decide what is best? Who are we to pass judgement on a personal decision? I don't tell you how to properly breathe. Like wise, you have no business deciding what someone can and can't do with their body. "

 JB wrote on September 29, 2008 12:45 pm:
" More important to promote birth control. Waste more time on the unborn then those born. "

 Mike wrote on September 29, 2008 1:11 pm:
" Hey Josh....When birth control was legalized in America in the 1960's one of the great promises was that it would reduce the number is abortions (illegal at that time). Birth control promotes using women....sex with no strings attached...instead you have an increase in unwanted pregnancies and abortion becuase it doesn't always work and has promoted a culture of using women. Maybe you should take a harder look at the reasoning for the Catholic Church's teachings! "

 Edgar Pearlstein wrote on September 29, 2008 1:21 pm:
" Greg is right. In the 45 years since Roe v.Wade, their have been about 60 million legal abortions in the U.S. So all of those women are muderers in the first degree. Add to that the fact that each of them was aided and abetted by a friend or relative (at least in providing transportation), and we get a total that about half the adult women in the U.S. are guilty of murder. "

 Clarification wrote on September 29, 2008 4:26 pm:
" First, making a choice to have unprotected sex is accepting the risk of becoming pregnant, NOT accepting the risk of giving birth. The exact point is that there are options and all should remain available. I would HARDLY say that an abortion is an easy solution or that it is any easier than childbirth.

Safe haven laws and adoption don't eliminate all reasons to have an abortion. How about not being pregnant for 9 months? How about not going through hours and hours of painful child birth!?!?!?! What about someone with a job requiring physical labor who will be replaced if she can't work? How about a drug addict who won't give up cocaine during her pregnancy? How about an irresponsible person who wouldn't consider giving up the baby and mistreated it? "

 Good Writer wrote on September 29, 2008 8:29 pm:
" Ms. Gutierrez the two articles I've read of yours clearly articulates your position and allows a knowledgeable debate of the issue. Please keep writing. Whether one agrees or disagrees your comments they give all a rational perspective to consider. "

 whatever wrote on September 29, 2008 9:17 pm:
" I agree this is an important issue, but so many one issue voters vote on this one issue. And what do we get, years and years of miserable government. The "Christian Right" and the "One issue Voters" should form their own party and run from the Republicans. The Republicans have done NOTHING to advance this cause. But a few members of a third party in Congress could force this issue to be resolved. At this point set the bar a little lower and shoot for having the issue decided on a state by state basis, going for an all out ban across the country won't work EVER. And keep in mind the odds of a woman going through her entire life without having had "the procedure" aren't particularly high. Another reason this issue is dead in the water for right now. We have a lot more at stake right now in this country than this one issue. "

 Ryan wrote on September 29, 2008 10:06 pm:
" Government may at times seem 'amoral' but it is not logical to say that government, of any sort, is without underlying morals. Governments are human institutions, which implement morals on its people. Is murder a moral issue? Is smoking marijuana a moral issue? Is financial fraud a moral issue? Is the speed limit a moral issue? You know who decides? The people, with their understanding of morality, decide. Whether you like it or not, government is very simply the carrying-out of the morality of the people, that is bedrock.

Of course, you telling someone that they can't impose their pro-life morals on you, is itself your own attempt to impose your morals on them. Whining about imposing morals doesn't seem so righteous after coming to this understanding. Everyone has morals, not everyone’s moral understanding is the same, but we do agree about the wrongness, for the most part, of the big ones...murder, rape, stealing. Almost any mentally healthy person in the world would get at least a small sense of regret over fatally injuring an innocent family member for no reason. Deep down everybody knows it's not good to injure another. This hints toward the universal moral truth that life is good.

Your daily behavior is guided many times a day by the rules that our government has enacted. The spirit set forth by these words from the Declaration of Independence should not allow us to tolerate abortion:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Whether you believe 'Creator' means God or simply the biological parents, the point is that once 'men' are 'created' they have the right to ‘Life’ in this country. "

 Greg wrote on September 30, 2008 10:30 am:
" Ryan makes the same error as Ms. Gutierrez, namely ascribing personal "moral" codes to the motivations of the State. Ryan eschews murder because (presumably) he considers it to be immoral. This is a personal judgement. There are others in this world who believe that murder can be not only desirable, but pleasing to God as well in the service of certain ends. This reflects their personal moral code. The State, on the other hand, in our system of government, eschews murder not because of anyone's moral code, but because it is destructive of order in society. This is not a moral judgement, it is a pragmatic one. Ryan and Ms. Gutierrez would impose a moral code (presumably, their own) on the government which would shape and limit its legal processes. Regardless of whose moral code is thus enforced, the result is a theocratic State. The concept of theocracy is inimical to the intentions of the Founding Fathers and to the sensibilities of most U.S. citizens. "

 AJW wrote on October 1, 2008 11:29 am:
" BRAVO Jennifer! It's about time a little ink was spilled in answer to the immeasurable blood that has been spilled in this Nation through Abortion! "

 LIFE wrote on October 1, 2008 12:59 pm:
" If life, the most basic of human rights is not protected, what will be? Thank you Jennifer for the courage to present some important facts regarding both scientific and historical proofs that we must as a Nation defend human life in it's most vulnerable condition. Why are those who are so opposed to "Choosing Life" afraid to let these facts be printed for honest evaluation? I believe there are many who will take the information and come to the conclusion that we as a Nation must begin to defend human life from conception to natural death if we are to continue to be the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. "

 cat wrote on October 3, 2008 11:52 am:
" Good points everyone.

I just have to say that it saddens me to drive by a clinic on the way to work knowing that a Holocaust is going on behind closed doors just because it was made a law.
Today it's babies, what will tomorrow bring? "

Ads by Yahoo!