Abortion



Life clearly begins within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy scientifically, given fetal development (brain waves at 6 weeks, a beating heart at 3 weeks, etc.) We should be erring on the side of caution when potentially infringing on another's right to life. While most Americans recognize abortion as moral in the cases of rape and life of the mother (for which abortion was legal even before Roe), only 36% support it for financial reasons.

'War On Women'?
More women than men support the GOP 20-week abortion ban, 71% according to the Washington Post. This can also be seen from Gallup polling, which shows only 26% of women support 2nd trimester abortions to 31% of men. Logically, which side wants to control women, the conservatives who just want sensible restrictions to ensure babies aren't being murdered, or liberals who want a giant government system paid for by taxpayers controlling every facet of women's most private healthcare decisions? As a political matter, 90% of Republicans voted for the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote to only 58% of Democrats, and 100% of Republicans voted for the 1963 Equal Pay Act to 96% of Democrats.

In fact, of four major polls conducted in recent weeks on the 20-week abortion ban, each one shows women are actually more supportive of the law than men. A new Quinnipiac poll shows 60 percent of women prefer allowing unrestricted abortions for only the first 20 weeks of pregnancy rather than the Supreme Court-prescribed 24 weeks. Among men, 50 percent support the 20-week law — a 10-point gap. A Washington Post-ABC News poll showed the gap at seven points, while two other polls (from NBC/Wall Street Journal and National Journal) showed it at six and four, respectively.

And those numbers may actually understate support among women for the new restrictions. In the Post-ABC poll, rather than choosing between a 20-week ban and the current 24 weeks, 8 percent of women volunteered that abortion should never be legal, and 3 percent volunteered that the window should be smaller than 20 weeks. If you add them to the 60 percent of women who support the 20-week abortion ban, then 71 percent of women would seem to support the effort to increase abortion restrictions. -Aaron Blake, Washington Post

Ultimately the single greatest crimes against women today are directly caused by sex-selective abortion, which has led to a phenomenon known as Asian Gendercide or the "Missing Women of Asia," 100-200 million missing women. This is due in large part to population-control eugenics policies such as China's One-Child Policy which prevents families from having more than one child and leads at times to forced abortions. Many Asian families, preferring male children, abort the females using birth control tests to determine their gender. Photos in 2012 of these forced abortions led to national outrage and calls to end China's One-Child Policy.

The sex-selective abortion policy has led to a huge gender disparity in China, 122.66 boys for every girl born, the highest ratio in the entire Asia Specific region, and resulted in 32 million single males. This is a driving force behind human trafficking, prostitution, and the female slave trade which occurs near China in countries such as Thailand. Perhaps the left screams so loudly about a war on women because they are afraid people will notice they are the ones waging it, and are the ones truly responsible for the greatest crimes against women.

Arguments On Abortion
The following are some common Pro-Choice arguments on abortion, and problems with the reasoning.

Right to Choose
The obvious question not being confronted is what choice is at stake? The choice to kill another human being to bypass the consequences and responsibilities that should accompany the choice to create another life; in essence the choice to murder one's own children so sex can be engaged in freely without responsibility or consequence. As observed by BBC News, "The power of the responsibility argument can be seen by changing genders. Most people would apply the argument that sex has consequences to men without any worries at all."

Rare Circumstances: Life of Mother and Rape
BBC News has an article called "Abortion in self-defence" arguing that abortion should be allowed in cases where the mother's life and health are at risk, and that this is justifiable self-defense. However, BBC News acknowledges that abortion is NOT justified for the following reasons: "But supposing the mother is not in physical danger, what then? There are a number of cases where some people argue that a woman should have the right to an abortion, such as: damage to mental health, damage to family, damage to career prospects, damage to financial prospects, damage to plans for her life. The self-defence argument for abortion seems to fail here, because although a threat to life can be a defence to a charge of killing someone, none of the above would be an adequate defence in a case of homicide, nor would they be regarded as reasons that justified euthanasia. But if we don't regard the foetus as a person with a right to live, or if we regard it as a being that doesn't have a full right to life, then these cases of self-defence may be arguable." -BBC News. However, (A) danger to life of the mother, like rape, is a very rare circumstance that accounts for less than 1% of all abortions, (B) all major legislation put out by the Right to Life movement over the past decade has included exceptions allowing abortions for rape and life of the mother (e.g. Mexico City Policy, Born Alive Infant Protection Act, Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, etc.) and (C) at least 13 states had legislation allowing abortion for rape or life of the mother BEFORE Roe v. Wade - abortion was legalized for other reasons.

The bottom line is that apart from such extremely rare circumstances, BBC News acknowledges that "The self-defence argument for abortion seems to fail here, because although a threat to life can be a defence to a charge of killing someone, none of the above would be an adequate defence in a case of homicide, nor would they be regarded as reasons that justified euthanasia." Choosing to kill another person, in other words, is unjustifiable unless the mother's life is in danger or, debatably, if rape occurred. In fact, those who bring up cases like rape and life of the mother are doing so because, deep inside, they themselves know that choosing to murder another human being is justifiable only under such extreme circumstances, and NOT for abortion on demand.

The only way to justify abortion apart from such circumstances is, as BBC News says, "if we don't regard the foetus as a person with a right to live, or if we regard it as a being that doesn't have a full right to life". You see, this is not about the right to choose at all, and such a slogan distracts from the real issue - the real issue is whether the fetus is a human being deserving of a full right to life. Because if it is a human being worthy of the right to life, then there is no excuse for "choosing to kill" via abortion on demand.

Right to One's Body
The Pro-Choice movement likes to say that women should have a right to their bodies. However, such a right should logically not allow one to harm others with that body, including physical assault, murder, rape, or theft, and therefore, this is not an absolute right, but a privilege that is not intended to exceed another's unalienable rights, including the right to life. As Hugh V. McLachlan of Glasgow Caledonian University pointed out in 1997, there is no entitlement to one's body and "we have rights duties, liabilities, restrictions and disadvantages as well as rights concerning our own bodies." "Consider the assumption at issue in the abstract: 'That particular X is your X and, therefore, you are entitled to do what you want with it'. As a matter of pure logic, the claim is an absurdity. What if 'X' stands for a Thompson Machine Gun? Should we say: 'That is your machine gun and, therefore, you can do whatever you like with it?' On the contrary, although there might be some things which you and only you can of right do to and with the gun, if that particular machine gun is your machine gun then it is incumbent upon you in particular to ensure that certain things are not done with it. Is the situation any different when 'X' pertains to one's body or to parts of it? I do not think so." -Hugh V. McLachlan, Glasgow Caledonian University. As McLachlan continues to point out, this emphasis on rights neglects the other side of the coin, responsibilities or duties. He gives on pg. 177 the example of an insurance policy, and how using one's body to commit suicide can invalidate such a contract. Logically, creating another human life should likewise bring responsibly for actions toward that life - how is the decision to create another human life of lesser importance than the decision to sign an insurance contract? Why should one be able to kill a separate person to void the sexual decision to bring about another life, yet not be able to kill oneself without voiding an insurance contract? "Certainly a woman has a right to control her own body, but the unborn entity, though for a time living inside her body, is not part of her body. Hence, abortion is not justified, since no one's right to personal autonomy is so strong that it permits the arbitrary execution of others." -Francis J. Beckwith, Christian Research Journal.Ultimately, the real question is whether the fetus in question is another human being to be accorded unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness under the Declaration of Independence, for if so, no right to one's body should give power to infringe on its unalienable right to life. Your right to your body does not include the right, in other words, to kill others using that body to avoid the responsibilities and consequences of a sexual decision to create another life. That is what in the real world is called "murder" and it is reprehensible. Therefore, the real question is at what point a fetus becomes a human being.

Right to Privacy
To get abortion legalized, the Pro-Choice movement had to argue that women should have a "right to privacy". However, logically, if the fetus is a human being and thus murder would be committed, privacy is no excuse for such murder. Logically, killing someone in the privacy of one's own home should no more be an excuse for murder than killing them in the privacy of one's body. Furthermore, as Judge Henry J. Friendly pointed out in the nation's first major abortion case, Hall v. Lefkowitz, abortion is actually a complete violation of privacy when you look at it, requiring intervention in a woman's most private areas by a physician and variety of medical personnel. A holding that the privacy of sexual intercourse is protected against governmental intrusion scarcely carries as a corollary that when this has resulted in conception, government may not forbid destruction of the fetus. The type of abortion the plaintiffs particularly wish to protect against governmental sanction is the antithesis of privacy. The woman consents to intervention in the uterus by a physician, with the usual retinue of assistants, nurses, and other paramedical personnel, indeed the condition calling for such intervention may very likely have been established by clinical tests... Yet, even if we were to take plaintiffs’ legal position that the legislature cannot constitutionally interfere with a woman’s right to do as she will with her own body so long as no harm is done to others, the argument does not support the conclusion plaintiffs would have us draw from it. For we cannot say the New York legislature lacked a rational basis for considering that abortion causes such harm. Even if we should put aside the interests of the father, negligible indeed in the many cases when he has abandoned the prospective mother but not in all, the legislature could permissibly consider the fetus itself to deserve protection.

Women Choose, Not Men
The Pro-Choice movement likes to say men and fathers should have no say in the abortion debate, only women. However, as Thomas J. Lucente Jr. points out, this is similar to saying one can't criticize the President unless one is the President. "The pro-abortion crowd will argue that because I am a man, I should not be allowed to have an opinion on abortion, unless, of course, I support the mass murder of 50 million babies in the last 39 years. That's akin to saying I can't criticize the president unless I have been the president." -Thomas J. Lucente Jr. As Alan Keyes has pointed out, the Pro-Choice movement essentially is arguing for the baby's rights to be dependent on the mother's desire for it, making women slave-owners, essentially - this is very different from the Declaration of Independence which says the Creator gives us our unalienable rights, rather than them being dependent upon other people. "Either you can subscribe to the American creed which says that God endowed us with our rights, or you can subscribe to the abortion creed which says that those rights are the consequences of our mother's will." -Alan Keyes, speech at Southern Methodist University, Feb. 24, 1997. "... abortion is to our time what slavery was to the 19th Century, and if anyone of conscience went anywhere in the 19th Century and did not confront the American people with the evil of slavery, then they were not doing what statesmanship required... Well, it's a part of her body utterly dependent on her body, not viable apart from her body. She has, therefore, absolute power over this being, and given that absolute power she has the absolute right to dispose of it according to her will. We don't recognize what that's saying? What that's saying is that power makes for right. Might makes for right. If I have you in my power, I may dispose of you and your life according to my will. And if that argument is now accepted, and we have embraced it as a fundamental principle of law, then we have rejected the right principle. For if our right, our most basic and conditional right, the right to life itself comes to us not from God but from our mother's choice, then there is no human right that transcends in its claim, human choice and human power. Abortion is the paradigm, the ultimate paradigm of despotism, tyranny, oppression, slavery, holocaust." -Alan Keyes, speech in San Francisco, March 3, 2003. Ultimately, every American has a responsibility to stand up for the rights of other Americans when they are being murdered - regardless of gender. And to say a mother should be able to murder her children whenever she feels like it, apart from the father's opinions, is simply wrong.

When Does Life Begin?
Logically, we ought to be erring on the side of caution when potentially infringing on another person's inalienable right to life, rather than seeing how close we can come to committing murder without doing so. Abortion in the U.S. is legal in all 9 months (36 weeks) of pregnancy.

Earliest Recorded Pregnancy
Children can be born as early as 21 weeks, 4 days after pregnancy. As such, it makes no sense to argue that children are not human and can be aborted for any reason until 24 weeks of pregnancy, as is currently the case. Babies inside the womb are clearly human at 21 weeks. It makes no sense to argue that a child at the same stage of development as another outside the womb is not human simply because it has not been born yet.

In spite of this, the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood's research arm, reports that 1.5% of the 1.21 million abortions in the United States occur after the 21st week of pregnancy. Therefore, 18,150 abortions occur each year after the earliest point that children can be born prematurely and live. An additional 3.8% occur 16-20 weeks after pregnancy, an additional 45,980 abortions each year that are most certainly murder given proximity to time of premature birth. Why is a baby considered human outside the womb, yet nothing more than a fetus to be aborted at or near the same point in pregnancy if still inside the womb? And what will abortionists argue? That this is "only" 50-60 thousand innocent lives being taken each year?

Fetal Development
"Modern biology instructs that the genetic code that will dictate the entire future of the fetus is formed as early as the ___ day after conception; the fetus is thus something more than inert matter. The rules of property and of tort have come increasingly to recognize its rights." -Judge Henry Friendly, Hall v. Lefkowitz. According to Brian Clowes, Ph.D, as cited by the Pro-Life Action League , fetal development occurs as follows after conception:
 * 2 weeks: First completed brain cells appear.
 * 3 weeks: Heart begins beating, eyes form; brain, spinal column, and nervous system virtually complete.
 * 4 weeks: Muscle development, arm and leg buds visible, neocortical cells appear, blood flows in baby's veins separate from mother's blood.
 * 5 weeks: Pituitary gland forms, mouth, ears, and nose take shape.
 * 6 weeks: Brain waves can be detected.
 * 7 weeks: Cartilage skeleton completely formed, umbilical cord complete, brain coordinates voluntary muscle movement and involuntary organ movement, lips sensitive to touch.
 * 8 weeks: Based on nervous system development, a fetus can likely feel pain, teeth present, all organs present save lungs, taste buds and fingerprints forming, responds to tapping on amniotic sac.
 * 9 weeks: Fingernails form, can bend its fingers around an object and suck its thumb.
 * 10 weeks: All parts of body sensitive to touch; can swallow, squint, frown, and pucker brow.
 * 11 weeks: Breathing amniotic fluid and does so until birth, urination, all facial expressions (including smiling) possible, taste buds complete.
 * 12 weeks: Can kick, turn over, make a fist, hiccup, cry, open its mouth, press its lips together, and practice breathing.
 * 13 weeks: All senses are present, including vocal chords.
 * 20 weeks: Can be surprised by loud external noises.
 * 23 weeks: A fetus demonstrates REM (Rapid Eye Movement).
 * 4 months: Can grasp, swim, and turn somersaults.
 * 6 months: Hair growth on head and eyebrows, eyelashes form.
 * 7 months: A fetus' hands can support its entire weight.
 * 8 months: Fetus weighs more than 4 lbs., all body systems present.
 * 9 months: After this point, the fetus gains a half lb. each week and 41 of the 45 total generations of cell replication have already taken place.

Given this, it is small wonder that 76% of Americans in 2011 disapprove of abortion after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. (See Public Polling)

Global Legality
The United States is one of just 7 countries, out of a total of 198, that allows elective abortion after 20 weeks. The others are North Korea, China, Singapore, Vietnam, Canada, and the Netherlands. Most European countries ban abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy. Most countries can recognize that second and third trimester abortions should be severely restricted save in extenuating circumstances; the U.S. is an anomaly.

Public Opinion
Public polling, as seen below (sourced from Gallup ), reveals that Americans are increasingly calling themselves Pro-Life (50%) and continue to say abortion should be legal only in a few circumstances (59%) such as rape (75%) and life of the mother (83%).

Legal or Illegal
According to Gallup's most recent poll (May 3-6, 2012), 20% of Americans believe abortion should always be illegal, and 39% believe it should be legal only in a few circumstances, a combined 59% that believe it should always or usually be illegal. 25% believe abortion should always be legal, and 13% believe that it should be legal in most circumstances, a combined 38% that believe it should always or usually be legal. 4% hold no opinion. The percentage of Americans which believe abortion should always or usually be illegal has varied from a low of 51% (Sept. 6-7, 1994, and Sept. 22-24, 1995) to a high of 62% (May 2-5, 2005). Gallup has polled the question 33 times since it began asking in 1994.

Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice
Currently, 50% of Americans describe themselves as Pro-Life, 41% describe themselves as Pro-Choice, and 4% as Mixed/Neither, as of the most recent poll (May 3-6, 2012). The percentage of Americans describing themselves as Pro-Life has varied from a low of 33% (Sept. 3-6, 1995) to a high of 51% (May 7-10, 2009). Gallup has polled the question 41 times since it began asking in 1995.

By Trimester
Gallup has asked the following question four times from 2003-2011: "Thinking more generally, do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during each of the following stages of pregnancy. How about -- [RANDOM ORDER]?"

1st Trimester
The following results were given for "In the first three months of pregnancy" (1st Trimester):

2nd Trimester
The following results were given for "In the second three months of pregnancy" (2nd Trimester):

3rd Trimester
The following results were given for "In the last three months of pregnancy" (3rd Trimester):

By Circumstances
According to the most recent Gallup poll (June 9-12, 2011), the following percentages of Americans say abortion should be legal under each circumstance:

Pro-Life Initiatives
According to Gallup's most recent poll (July 15-17, 2011) these proposals by the Pro-Life movement have received the following public support levels. Those marked "(2005)" were polled most recently on November 11-13, 2005. Those marked "(2003)" were last polled on January 10-12, 2003.

Hippocratic Oath
The famous oath by Hippocrates (460-370 B.C.) taken commonly by medical students today includes the following line: "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion."

Hall v. Lefkowitz
Hall v. Lefkowitz was a court case on November 4, 1969 during which Roy Lucas, an assistant professor at the University of Alabama Law School, and his self-founded James Madison Constitutional Law Institute, sued to challenge New York's abortion laws. A three-judge court presided which included famous judge Henry Friendly. Friendly wrote a draft opinion in the spring of 1970 declaring government had right to regulate abortion and protect a fetus, contrary to the later Roe v. Wade ruling. However, shortly thereafter the New York legislature amended state abortion law to allow abortion within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, and Friendly's case was dismissed as unnecessary. Read some of Friendly's arguments made years before Roe v. Wade.

NARAL
Bernard Nathanson, one of NARAL's co-founders, described how he and the organization fabricated abortion statistics and used slogans to sway the public during the early days of Roe v. Wade.

I remember laughing when we made those slogans up. We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical. We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal, enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60 percent of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000, but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1,500 percent since legalization.

2009-2010 Healthcare Bill
See also: DFLA

While most Democrats support abortion, a growing number have been affiliating with Democrats For Life of America, also known as Pro-Life Democrats. ObamaCare in 2009-2010 would have passed rapidly if not for their influence, since Democrats had a Supermajority allowing them to pass anything without a single Republican vote. However, 40 Pro-Life Democrats, led by Congressman Bart Stupak signed a letter refusing to let ObamaCare pass without reforms on the abortion issue, and fought the bill from June 2009 to March 2010, in an attempt to add the Stupak Amendment to the bill (which was added to the House bill but removed in the Senate despite attempts by Sen. Ben Nelson to add it there as well).

Born Alive Infants Protection Act
In 2002, George W. Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act into federal law. The bill guaranteed that any infant born alive as a result of an induced abortion be provided medical care. The bill was necessary because before this, children were being regularly born alive after late-term induced abortions and left to die. Nurses Jill Stanek and Allison Baker testified before Congress that babies born alive after such abortions were being tossed into wastebaskets or back rooms and simply left to die. Stanek's moving testimony about how she held a little baby with Downs Syndrome for hours while hospital staff refused to help care for it, until he finally expired in her arms, proved key to the case.

The U.S. Senate passed the bill unanimously, 98-0. The House of Representatives passed the bill 380-15 with 3 others voting 'Present', the same as a No vote.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

 * Main Article: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), occasionally dubbed 'ObamaCare', was signed into law by Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. It was the result of a roughly 11-month campaign by the Democratic Party to pass sweeping healthcare changes. Despite a Supermajority held during much of this time, which prevented Republicans from having the votes necessary to stop bills, forty Pro-Life Democrats in the House united under their leader, Bart Stupak, to stall the House bill until it finally included the Pro-Life Stupak amendment (November 8, 2009). However, the Senate then refused to pass the House bill, tabling it indefinitely, and passed its own bill in December 2009 so the abortion agenda could be reinserted into healthcare. The two bills were then combined in a complicated process called 'Reconciliation', but the bill had to go back to the House for approval. Bart Stupak ultimately settled for an Executive Order from Barack Obama, essentially a presidential promise that abortion would not be funded in the bill, after which he and roughly half the Pro-Life Democrats voted in favor of the Reconciliation process, narrowly passing the bill. The other half of Pro-Life Democrats voted against the bill, several with strong misgivings.

Federal Funding
The U.S. Federal government is providing hundreds of millions of dollars each year to fund abortion under the guise of Title X funding — a program that provides an enormous influx of money for "reproductive health activities." In 2007, the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations Subcommittee approved a 10 percent increase for Title X funding, up from $283 million to almost $311 million.

Planned Parenthood's Budget
These funds are distributed mostly to Planned Parenthood, which requested an additional $100 million in Title X funding. In 2010, Planned Parenthood received a total of $363 million dollars from taxpayers through federal and state grants and contracts. This amounts to a 33% of its total income, which was reported to be $1.1 billion.

Planned Parenthood likes to claim that abortion accounts for just 3% of its services. However, an examination of its finances reveals that much if not most of its income relates to abortion. According to Planned Parenthood's 2007-08 budget, it received $1.038 billion of revenue from the following sources: Planned Parenthood's reported $374.7 million of revenue from "Health Center Income". Given that it reported performing 305,130 abortions, at an average cost of $450 (which lines up with statistics from the National Abortion Federation ), approximately $137.4 million of that $374.7 million Health Center Income came directly from performing abortions per analysis by Live Action.

Since much of its money comes from Government Grants and Services or Contributions and Requests ($595.5 million) likely related to abortion, in addition to this $137.4 million of direct abortion revenue, it appears probable that as much as half to two-thirds of Planned Parenthood's revenue relates to abortion.