The United States vs. Life :: by Dan Payne

In America we are a society of laws. We have many different laws on the books that govern everything from throwing an empty fast food bag out of a car to the killing of another human being. From manslaughter in the third degree to murder in the first, there are many local, state, and federal laws that govern the termination of another person’s life.

A killing is deemed to be justifiable if the person killed was a direct threat to the life of another person. However, if a person kills another person who is deemed an innocent, whether it was an unintentional fatal traffic accident or a premeditated murder, they will likely be charged with a crime.

In a case where you caused the death of another person on the highway, even if it was truly accidental, you will still be held liable for the death of the other person. Your case will be reviewed to determine whether or not charges will be filed against you.

If you are found negligent in the death of the other person, even if it was an accident and completely unintentional, you will likely at least be charged with manslaughter. It’s the way our system works, again, even if it really was an accident, you will still be held responsible by the law.

In the case of an accidental death however, you are not going to be charged with the most serious charge for murder so you will not have to face the harshest punishment. As an example in cases of accidental death, sentences for first-time offenders charged with vehicular manslaughter which do not involve intoxication usually do not consist of serving time in prison.

However, even in America, you could actually go to prison and be labeled a “murderer” for unintentionally hitting and killing someone jogging or riding a bike on the side of a busy highway. Nine out of ten times, the jogger or bicyclist will be deemed innocent in the eyes of the law. They were killed by your vehicle of which you were the operator thereby holding you responsible for their death.

It doesn’t matter if a hornet happened to fly through your window and land on your nose causing you to swerve into the bike lane while someone happened to be riding a bicycle or jogging at that precise moment—you will still be held accountable for the death of that person in eyes of the law. (If this seems harsh to you you’re not alone.)

First-degree murder on the other hand is of course the worst kind of homicide. When someone thinks through and plots out the killing of an innocent human being our society deems that is the worst crime that can be committed, yet that is exactly what those who are Pro-Choice are supporting.

Disclaimer: This article is in no way intended to cause more pain for anyone who has already gone through with an abortion. God has already forgiven you based upon your repentance and confession if indeed you have offered that to Him. However, you can still make a difference in your own life and in the life of others and that is also the intention of this article.

Abortion is always a hot button issue as it is sure to be during the long campaign season ahead of the upcoming 2016 presidential election. Hopefully this article can help make a difference on Election Day, no matter how many elections lie ahead.

Is Pro-Choice pro science? Let’s find out.

Those who support abortion in the first trimester but withdraw their support for abortion in the second or third trimester are still wrong because life begins at conception.

As we all learn in basic biology, a female is actually born with all of the eggs she will ever need to reproduce. This number will not increase; she is born with a specific pre-determined number.

The following is an excerpt from an article titled: “Women Lose 90 percent of ‘Eggs’ by 30”
published in the Health News section of The Telegraph By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent:

The new research by the University of St Andrews and Edinburgh University is the first to collate the actual decline of the “ovarian reserve” – the potential number of eggs women are born with – from conception to menopause.

It shows that on average women are born with 300,000 potential egg cells but this pool declines at a much faster rate than first thought.

By the age of 30 there is only 12 percent left on average and by the age of 40 just three percent.

When a women dies, all of her dies, including all of the eggs that could have developed into a baby. While she is still alive however, one egg from the “ovarian reserve” can be joined at conception (or fertilization as science likes to call it) and a baby (or a zygote as science likes to call it) is formed.

A process begins. It is both a process of life and death. Think about it. No matter how young a baby is, he or she will only get older until they become an old person and die, even if they were conceived last week. If a human embryo (baby) is removed from the womb only one day after it is conceived and placed in a “test tube,” it will just continue to grow and age. It will not get any “younger.”

At the moment a human spirit enters this world at conception, it is subjected to the second law of thermodynamics – or what the Bible calls the curse God put on the earth as a result of sin, as recorded in the Book of Genesis. Our spirit was alive to God before it was bound within our covering of flesh, and it will live on for eternity after our flesh finishes the dying process.

Something cannot begin dying unless it is first living. Since death begins at conception it stands to reason that life also begins at conception.

Despite many claims to the contrary, an unborn human child is not the body of its mother. This is proven by basic biology. It is no mystery that a mother can have a different blood type than her child. It is also no mystery what would happen if a mother were to receive a blood transfusion from her own child of a different blood type. She would suffer a potentially fatal immune reaction to the blood of her own child. The body of the mother and the body of the child are not the same.

In another amazing example of what can happen to a mother because her body is not that of her own child, please read this very brief synopsis of an article from Natural History, May 1, 2007 by Gil Mor titled: “Pregnancy Reconceived: What Keeps a Mother’s Immune System from Treating Her Baby as Foreign Tissue? A New Theory Resolves the Paradox.”

In 1996, investigators at Harvard and Tufts universities, and at the New England Medical Center in Boston, detected fetal cells in mothers’ bodies decades after pregnancy. Furthermore, the fetal cells could infiltrate maternal tissues and differentiate into liver, blood, skin, and other cell types. Originally, it was thought that such fetal cells in the mothers caused many of the autoimmune diseases that afflict women.

But in 2002, Tufts investigators demonstrated that the fetal cells may play a critical role in repairing a mother’s damaged tissue. In one case, a woman suffering from hepatitis, a serious liver disease stopped her treatment against medical advice. Surprisingly, she recovered. Her own body could not regenerate healthy liver cells, so the investigators were baffled.

When they tested a specimen of her liver, though, they discovered it incorporated thousands of male cells still left in her circulation from a pregnancy nearly two decades before her illness. Those leftover fetal cells had generated new liver cells, and thereby saved the mother’s life.

In the case of the woman who suffered from hepatitis referenced in the article above, (which has been cited by the National Institutes of Health and the Mayo Clinic), it was a blessing that her unborn child was not in fact “her own body” otherwise she would not have been healed. This case should remove all doubt that an unborn child is not the body of the mother.

It is this writer’s opinion that unborn children should be specifically protected under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment was put in place to grant U.S. citizenship to former slaves and to all persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction (a path to citizenship). It also says that a state shall not deprive any person of life without due process of law and must guarantee all persons equal protection under the law. “All persons” should include unborn persons as well.

In a sad twist of irony, the 14th Amendment was used as the backbone of support for the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of “Jane Roe” in Roe v. Wade. The majority opinion found that the Due Process Clause’s protection of liberty included the right to privacy. The court concluded that outlawing abortion would violate the individual’s right to privacy.

The Due Process clause contained within the 5th (Federal) and the 14th (State) Amendments does not guarantee the right to privacy to commit premeditated murder. The last time I checked, substantive due process does not guarantee that the fundamental rights of citizens to commit murder shall not be infringed upon by the government.

In fact, I’m fairly certain that no right for citizens to commit premeditated murder is contained within the U.S. Constitution. To twist and contort the principle of substantive due process contained within the 14th Amendment to afford an individual the “liberty” to commit premeditated murder solely because this “liberty” is protected by the individual’s right to privacy—is ludicrous.

What about the issue of viability?

After Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court has since ruled that a person has a right to an abortion until viability. Roe v. Wade defined viable as being “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid.” It also added that viability “is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.”

Everyone agrees that a baby needs its mother to survive before it is born. The same also holds true for the baby’s first day outside of its mother’s womb. If a new mother decided to go on a trip a couple of weeks after her baby was born and she left her baby all alone at home in its crib, what do you think would happen to that baby after a few days? How about after a few weeks?

The baby would not survive because he or she still needs the mother to provide “aid” (feeding and caring) to sustain life. Babies still need to be cared for after they are born just as they do before they are born in order to survive. It seems illogical to use the viability argument as a justification for abortion.

A mother recently said at the conclusion of the trial for the murderer of her son, that when she found out her son was killed, she felt her heart stop beating. If an unborn child really is the body of its mother, then at the precise moment its heart stops beating during an abortion procedure the heart of the mother should stop beating as well… but the heart of the mother beats on.

“For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb” (Psalm 139:13).