Hello Mr. president, Abortion Is Murder! Life Begins At Fertilization! That's A Fact [snip]!

I understand he is not too sharp on 8th grade Geography, wonder what his knowledge is on Human Embryology
and Bioethics? He probably would "we are not going to discuss something I cannot begin to understand....
If you are referring to Human Life, I'm sorry.....what was the question?" This is the value the president has placed on human life!

By defending Roe vs. Wade, Obama upholds and advocates abortion, which is the same as destroying human
life. You see, this decision is more than a "woman's right to choose." It is the very words he chose, that speaks volumes about the President's integrity and moral values. To Obama, Pro Choice means not only that a
woman will not have to take responsibility if she was to get pregnant but she is free to commit murder if the pregnancy is inconvenient . After all, we would not want her to give up her dreams because she made a mistake.

My letter to President Obama:

Dear Mr.President, please take a look at the American Bioethics Advisory Commission. A trip through history regarding the scientific facts of when life begins: American Bioethics Advisory Commission

When does human life begin? The final answer

C. Ward Kischer,Ph.D.

A human embryologist speaks out about socio-legal issues involving the human embryo.

The Science of Human Embryology

Hippocrates (460-377 B.C.) wrote about the development of the chick embryo. Later,Aristotle (384-322 B.C,) wrote a treatise on his observations of development of the chick embryo and other embryos. He is generally regarded as the "founder" of embryology. Subsequently,there were many published observations of embryonic and fetal development, including drawings of a dissected pregnant uterus by Leonardo da Vinci (15th century,A.D.),albeit with certain errors.

Later Middle 1800's came the cell theory:

The cell theory developed by Schleiden and Schwann in 1839 hastened our knowledge of embryology and provided for the realization that a spermatozoon fuses with an oocyte ("egg") and forms a zygote, the single celled embryo, which then divides and adds more cells and tissues in defining the developing body.

Here is the father of Human Embryology,

Wilhelm His (1831-1904). He developed the method of reconstruction, that is, putting together descriptive drawings from sectioned human embryos to show a three dimensional structure. Although the case for fertilization of the human oocyte by the human spermatozoon was made intuitively by observing the process in mammals more than 100 years ago, direct observation of the process in the human was made in about 1968. The significance of this was resolved experimentally with subsequent growth of the new individual and successful implantation with completion of development to birth. This was accomplished with the birth of baby Louise Brown in England in July, 1978. Other successes soon followed.

The Continuum of Life

The facts above, along with the constancy of the time of gestation, approximately 38 weeks, reasonably declare that the life of the new individual human being begins with fertilization. Virtually every human embryologist and every major textbook of Human Embryology states that fertilization marks the beginning of the life of the new individual human being.

So Mr. President, how did you become so corrupt? Is it because you choose to follow the same corrupt tactics of politically correct politics demonstrated in the 1973 Supreme Court ruling of Roe vs. Wade? Oh, that question was rhetorical, I know where you stand. Do you even know what Roe vs. Wade says? Here is a refresher on that case:


The Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade:

The modern day assault on Human Embryology began in 1973 in the oral arguments of Roe v. Wade, and in the majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun [4]. He wrote: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins". He referred to the "disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology" as being "unable to arrive at any consensus." It appeared he was talking about biological life by inferring that "medicine" could define its beginning. But, then, Blackmun said the following: "There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics." This was as if to say that science had not progressed since 300 B.C.

I will leave the rest for you to read. Feel free to educate yourself. If you are going to be instructing our future girls, my daughter included, on killing babies it will behoove you to know what you are talking about.

I look forward to your response.


Regards,
my name

This is my letter to Obama! Not emotional just the facts. Somehow he overlooked those! I will let you know if he answers.

Thanks for your time,
Pax

ya dont like it dont have one or try to get roe v wade repealed good luck with that.......

I really don't know what to say on this topic anymore. I am pro life but i can't force people to think like me so I will take Bill's stance...

*Warning! Language!*

reply to post by KilrathiLG


I encourage any member of ATS to read what Roe vs. Wade REALLY says. It says life begins when a baby is born. That means during the second and third trimester that "thing" you feel inside of you, is NOTHING.

How very sad, and I just may try to get Roe vs. Wade repealed!

Pax

I cant not stand Obama.

Now that I said that, this is an absolutely weak attack.

By defending Roe vs Wade, Obama is not passing on a chance to defend life, he is actually defending the rule of law. Weather you like or not, Abortion is by law a legal medical procedure. So by defending Roe vs Wade, your defending the rule of law. I would expect the President to do that no matter what the law said.

If Pro Lifers REALLY wanted to make a change, they would be pushing for State's Rights and be demanding this issue be settled at the State level. I have lived all over the country and I can tell you for a fact that some areas are pro choice and others are pro life. The area I am in now for instance is a very pro life area. If left to the State, mine would be make abortion illegal, I have no doubt about it.

That being said, the whole issue is silly to me. YOU CAN NOT LEGISLATE BEHAVIOR! It has been tried, it does not work. Did it work when abortion was illegal in this country? Not at all. Women found other ways to do it that were more dangerous not only to the fetus but to the women. People do not bring up back alleys and coat hangers for nothing... it really happened like that. So no matter what the law says, people will do what they want to do and that is a fact no one can escape.

AGAIN!

Didn't you like the outcome of the anti-Obama thread you posted yesterday on this very same subject?

I reiterate my opinion. I applaud Obama for standing up, especially during an election year, for women's right when it comes to reproductive rights!

You may say abortion is immoral, but I disagree that it's murder! When life begins is up for debate. The woman's right to have a say over what is going on with her body is her choice and HER choice only!

I'm sick and tired of your pretense of moral high ground and insults to people who disagree with your opinions. Your opinions are not fact and are not supported by the vast majority of Americans or of medical research.

Stay out mine and my daughters uteri!

Uh oh. This is gonna get ugly really fast.
I'm just gonna stay out of this one.

reply to post by paxnatus

You should really get a life.

You stay out of my affairs, I'll stay out of yours

My friend had a baby that was diagnosed anecaphalic during her pregnancy. She was offered a termination. She refused. The baby was born and he was, and you'll pardon my insensitivity, mangled.
That wasn't life. That was suffering. And she knew it. We all knew it. Even her fundamentalist christian parents who said they would cut her off if she went through with a termination knew it.
Only they didn't sit with her as the baby struggled, and suffered in agony until the end, some 7 hours later.
How brave and supportive they were?
She's never forgiven herself. Never tried for any more children. She remains traumatised by her son with half his head missing, squirming, dying.

You don't know what you're talking about.
Send your knee-jerk, ill-informed letter to Obama.
Just stop spouting it all over here.
If you haven't experienced it, seen it from her side of things before you put pen to paper, or finger to keyboard, then I have absolutely no respect for you, and no interest in your rants.

reply to post by windword


Hello,

If you do not agree that a baby not in the second or third trimester is not technically murder what would happen if somebody assaulted a women in the beginning of her pregnancy where she miscarriages...is that technically murder if a tiny fetus dies as a result of the injuries sustained or do we pick and choose what murder is to help us sleep at night?

Funny because didn't Ron Paul say in a debate the first thing he would do is get rid of Roe vs Wade?

Oh right hes unelectable. Forgot that. Carry on.

Originally posted by chrismarco
reply to post by windword

 

Hello,

If you do not agree that a baby not in the second or third trimester is not technically murder what would happen if somebody assaulted a women in the beginning of her pregnancy where she miscarriages...is that technically murder if a tiny fetus dies as a result of the injuries sustained or do we pick and choose what murder is to help us sleep at night?

No, it's not.

reply to post by Deplume


I would agree in certain circumstances that I hate the term terminating but having a baby put to sleep permanently may be not only ethical but appropriate in some circumstances...I guess when it comes to quality of life the same argument should be made when ending someone that is terminal....I don't think we should get upset arguing with each other but this is a tough area to discuss that does not necessarily have a black and white answer...I would feel horrible either way in that situation...

reply to post by paxnatus
Good for you for taking a stand!



People cheered Occupy when they stood for something.

But I guess you only get cheers when it is a liberal-accepted stance.

*Bravo* regardless.

reply to post by paxnatus

If you are so pro-life , your house must be just full of babies that you have adopted.
How many babies have you adopted?
Or do not care about them once they leave the womb?

Originally posted by cconn487
Funny because didn't Ron Paul say in a debate the first thing he would do is get rid of Roe vs Wade?

Oh right hes unelectable. Forgot that. Carry on.

As much as I detest abortion, the president does not have the power to end Roe v Wade.

reply to post by paxnatus


again good luck with that but i equate telling people what they can put in there bodies or where they can put things in there bodies or take things out of there body(child is a parasite by medical definition) as something the government should not regulate.if we wanna smoke let us smoke (what ever it may be) if we wanna drink let us drink(booze etc),if we want to die give us the chance to die with dignity(euthanasia),if we want to control the organisms living in our bodies let us get rid of them at our own whim(abortion) but while pro choice i would like to see some form of time enforced limit placed on how many you can get (a friend of mine has had 8 abortions since 2003 and she is only 22)but thats just my own view and formed from my personal opinion of that person in question .

roe v wade has been around for a while bush didnt get rid of it obama wont touch it and risk loosing the female voters(election year)ron paul if he wins Might try to get rid of it but he has to get elected first and even then he said it would be a states issue not a federal one,romney im not sure about to be honest ,newt if any one were to try to get rid of roe v wade i see it being him (so if u want to get rid of abortion that means voting for newt.....haev fun with that one) and most likely it would take a supreme court FULL of conservatives not just a majority of them(and a few of them women)and a president not worried about re-election to pull it off

Originally posted by cconn487
Funny because didn't Ron Paul say in a debate the first thing he would do is get rid of Roe vs Wade?

Oh right hes unelectable. Forgot that. Carry on.

HAHA!

If a president could over turn a SCOTUS ruling, Obama would have turned over the "Corporations are People" ruling, but alas, all a president can do is wait for a justice to die or retire and then appoint someone who will rule according to "the right" beliefs.

Abortion (Infanticide) is something we as a species has done far longer than any religious script talks about. Its fine an dandy to dis agree with something, but to believe your opinion is higher than all else is just ignorance. Live and let live. If people don't want the child they have conceived, its their right as human beings to get that little guy vacuumed out.

reply to post by windword


I'm not sure of the duration of the child in the womb but a few states do consider this Fetal Homicide...

Link