On this sad anniversary-- 40 years now since the beginning of America's holocaust with the Roe v Wade decision-- here is a beautiful video showing the growth of a child from conception to birth.
May God bless and keep the 50 million children who never saw a birthday.
May God bless and keep the 50 million children who never saw a birthday.
How exactly does that fetus in heaven thing work again? Is it true that an aborted fetus would never know anything but an eternity in paradise?
ReplyDelete-KW
Pope Benedict XVI Changes Catholic Church's Stance on Unbaptized Babies and Limbo
DeletePépé,
DeleteA change for the better, my friend.
Thanks for the link.
From Pepe's link:
DeleteAfter extensive theological research, the commission has reported that there is a possibility that these unbaptized babies can go to heaven.
I'm curious about their research methods. Beyond just making stuff up, I mean.
Why the need for research anyway? Surely God could simply "reveal" to his trusted lieutenant on earth, His Holiness the Pope, the fate of the departed unbaptized ones.
And what about unbaptized toddlers?
Call me a cynic, but it seems little more than a calculated PR stunt to keep people who lost a little one from leaving the church and its hungry coffers.
Wow, acording to a new NBC/WSJ poll, a majority of Americans – for the first time – believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
ReplyDeleteWhat’s more, seven in 10 respondents oppose Roe v. Wade being overturned, which is the highest percentage on this question since 1989.
-KW
Your leaders will be so proud of those numbers.
DeleteThat settles it. Killing children is okay then.
DeleteTRISH
May their little souls rest in peace.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing so vile as the murder of innocents.
What could be more innocent than a new life?
May God bless them and keep them.
May he forgive those who do these evil deeds with no understanding of what they have done.
God willing, and with the help of those who do understand, may their eyes and hearts be opened to the truth.
This is the fruit of a secular society!
ReplyDeleteIt is believed that these children are adopted by parents in heaven.
Pépé,
DeleteThat is a beautiful thought.
I am not sure what happens, but I have faith they will be welcomed into God's kingdom.
Sometimes I wonder if the armies described in revelations (first fruits, pure, etc) would not hold them among their numbers.
Again, I am not sure of these things. One can only wonder and interpret.
But, I am sure these little souls are not only with God, but will also be granted justice when their number is complete.
"I'm Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of the Roe v. Wade decision that brought legal child-killing to America. I was persuaded by feminist attorneys to lie, to say that I'd been raped, and I needed an abortion. It was all a lie."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=X59ZhVVJGTI
Not that this will persuade the adamntly pro-abortion because you all know it's a lie anyway and you don't care.
TRISH
You're right, don't care. This is much bigger than the story of one woman.
Delete-KW
Hey, KW, so the end justified the means. Who cares if the "constitutional right to abortion" was based on perjury and fraud? As long as you get to kill your baby, that's all you really care about.
DeleteEven if I were pro-abortion, I'd be ashamed of the way R v W was done.
I was persuaded by feminist attorneys to lie, to say that I'd been raped, and I needed an abortion.
DeleteIt is interesting that pro-life supporters feel the need to lie. McCorvey's attorney's didn't persuade her to lie. her friends did, because Texas law at the time allowed for a woman to have an abortion if she had been raped. It was only after her scheme had failed that she contacted Coffee and Weddington who represented her. Their case was not predicated on McCorvey having been raped. In fact, it was predicated on her not having been raped and asserting that the Texas law restricting her right to an abortion was unconstitutional nonetheless.
I don't care if McCorvey is pro-choice or pro-life. But lying to support your cause tells me that your cause is devoid of merit. And the pro-life lobby does very little to support their cause except lie. And this quote from McCorvey is a prime example.
And there is also the little tidbit that after her false rape scheme had failed, McCorvey attempted to get an illegal abortion before she contacted Coffee and Weddington but was unable to do so.
DeleteIt wasn't "feminist attorneys" who persuaded her to lie. She came to them after her lies and attempts to get a back-alley abortion failed. The case itself was based entirely upon facts, with no perjury involved. But Egnor is either ignorant of the facts of the case, or dishonest enough to lie about them, so he says Roe v. Wade was based on "perjury and fraud".
@Anon:
DeleteThis is the transcript of McCorvey's testimony before the US Senate on January 21, 1998: [http://lettersfromthewomb.com/norma-mccoverys-jane-roe-vs-wade-testamony/]
"Good morning. My name is Norma McCorvey. I'm sorry to admit that I'm the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade.
The affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court didn't happen the way I said it did, pure and simple. I lied! Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffey needed an extreme case to make their client look pitiable. Rape seemed to be the ticket. What made rape even worse? A gang rape! It all started out as a little lie, but my little lie grew and became more horrible with each telling.
Not only did I lie, but I was lied to. I did not come to the Supreme Court on behalf of a class of women. I wasn't pursuing any legal remedy for my unwanted pregnancy. I did not go to the federal courts for relief. I met with Sarah Weddington to find out how I could obtain an abortion. She and Linda Coffey said they didn't know where to get one. Sarah already had an abortion but she lied to me just like I lied to her! She knew where to get one, obviously, but I was of no use to her unless I was pregnant. Sarah and Linda were looking for somebody, anybody, to use to further their own agenda. I was their most willing dupe.
Since all these lies succeeded in dismantling every state's protection of the unborn, I think it's fair to say that the entire abortion industry is based on a lie."
McCorvery lied, and there was obvious perjury: she lied about the rape in the affidavit to the Supreme Court.
Whether her attorneys knew about the lie is a matter of conjecture. McCovery was obviously not sophisticated legally, and the fabrication of rape was helpful to the pro-abort attorneys to dramatize their case.
Did Weddington and Coffee know about and abet the lie about rape? You know the answer to that question.
Whether her attorneys knew about the lie is a matter of conjecture. McCovery was obviously not sophisticated legally, and the fabrication of rape was helpful to the pro-abort attorneys to dramatize their case.
DeleteHere's the problem with your blather: if you go and look at the actual documentation regarding the case, you will find that not only did Coffee and Weddington not claim their client had been raped, no evidence was presented that she had. Why not? For the very simple reason that if McCorvey had been raped then she would have had no standing to challenge the Texas law in question, which included an exception when a woman had been raped. The idea that Coffee or Weddington induced McCorvey to say she was raped is not only a complete fabrication, it is silly, as they didn't present that as evidence in their case. But it doesn't surprise me that you are willing to continue lying about that, because that seems to be what you do.
So McCorvey perjured herself in her testimony to the Senate, when she said that she lied in the affidavit to the Supreme Court?
DeleteAnd did Coffee and Weddington tell their client the truth when she asked them how she could get an abortion and they said they didn't know where to get one, when in fact a pregnant client was central to their case?
Did McCorvey lie to the Senate in her testimony?
So McCorvey perjured herself in her testimony to the Senate, when she said that she lied in the affidavit to the Supreme Court?
DeleteNo, but you notice that she didn't say that they had told her to lie, which was what Trish said they had done. She lied about being raped well before she met them. They didn't convince McCorvey that she needed an abortion, she came to them after failing to secure one twice and asked them to help her get one, and they told her they could take legal action to try to change the law so she could.
And did Coffee and Weddington tell their client the truth when she asked them how she could get an abortion and they said they didn't know where to get one, when in fact a pregnant client was central to their case?
Why would they have known where to get an abortion? McCorvey had already tried to lie to her doctor to get an abortion, and had tried to procure an illegal abortion. Why would a pair of lawyers know where to get an illegal abortion? And why would a pair of lawyers counsel their client to take an illegal action, or abet an illegal action?
Did McCorvey lie to the Senate in her testimony?
Her testimony to the Senate is so garbled it is impossible to tell if she lied or not. But what is clear is that the facts of the case, and the facts outlined in her own Supreme Court affidavit, don't support the contention that her lawyers lied to her at any step of the way, or that they suborned perjury in any manner.
[she didn't say that they had told her to lie, which was what Trish said they had done. She lied about being raped well before she met them. They didn't convince McCorvey that she needed an abortion, she came to them after failing to secure one twice and asked them to help her get one, and they told her they could take legal action to try to change the law so she could.]
Delete"Changing the law" would take considerably more time than McCorvey had to get an abortion. So they lied to her.
[Why would they have known where to get an abortion?]
A couple of abortion mongering lawyers didn't know where to get an abortion? Weddington had already had an abortion herself. She forgot where?
How about an out-of-state abortion? Her lawyers didn't know that abortions could be obtained outside of Texas?
Why didn't the lawyers help their client get a legal abortion, which was available in many places across the country, and refer her to someone who could help her finance it if necessary? However, McCorvey needed to be pregnant to have the legal case proceed. Hmmmm......
[The case itself was based entirely upon facts, with no perjury involved]
You admit that McCorvey lied in her affidavit to the Supreme Court. Yet you say that the case involved no perjury. Is lying in an affidavit to the Supreme Court "perjury"?
[don't support the contention that her lawyers lied to her at any step of the way, or that they suborned perjury in any manner.}
Were Weddington and Coffee aware of their own client's affidavit to the Supreme Court? Would it be routine professional conduct for an attorney bringing a case before the Supreme Court to know of and read the affidavit their client was submitting to the Court? McCorvey was not given an abortion in Texas because her rape claim was deemed not credible. Did her attorneys disagree with that assessment? Did they inform the Court of the serious doubts that had been raised about their client's credibility, about the possibility that their client lied in the affidavit submitted to the Court?
Do you really believe that Weddington and Coffee didn't know that McCorvey lied in her affidavit? Do you really believe that they honestly had no idea where McCorvey could obtain an abortion in the United States? Do you really believe that it is a coincidence that W and C needed a pregnant client to bring the case and they just happened to forget that abortions were available in many other states?
Oh, and do you really believe that the Constitution provides a right to an abortion? Do you think Roe v Wade is good Constitutional law?
"Changing the law" would take considerably more time than McCorvey had to get an abortion. So they lied to her.
DeleteHow would you divine that? They won in the District Court, which took almost no time at all. After that, McCorvey could have had an abortion at any time.
A couple of abortion mongering lawyers didn't know where to get an abortion? Weddington had already had an abortion herself. She forgot where?
Other than McCorvey's allegation, how do you know Weddington knew where to get an abortion? She had gone to Mexico three years earlier to get an abortion, but three years is a long time, and it is quite likely that her knowledge was out of date. McCorvey had been given the name of a place that would perform an abortion by another friend and when she got there the place had been closed. Why would Weddington have current information based upon an event three years prior?
How about an out-of-state abortion? Her lawyers didn't know that abortions could be obtained outside of Texas?
Because referring a woman to an out of state abortion facility could (and was believed at the time to be) a crime in itself under the Texas abortion law.
Why didn't the lawyers help their client get a legal abortion, which was available in many places across the country, and refer her to someone who could help her finance it if necessary?
Once again, many lawyers at the time were of the opinion that doing so would subject them to possible criminal prosecution.
You admit that McCorvey lied in her affidavit to the Supreme Court. Yet you say that the case involved no perjury. Is lying in an affidavit to the Supreme Court "perjury"?
Have you read her affidavit to the Supreme Court? Her complaints amount to saying "I went to some lawyers. They gave me legal advice. They offered to represent me, and then when I agreed they did. They gave me an affidavit to sign, which I could have read, but I didn't bother." She didn't lie in her affidavit, she just said things that didn't amount to misconduct, fraud, or deception on the part of her lawyers.
Were Weddington and Coffee aware of their own client's affidavit to the Supreme Court?
McCorvey's affidavit to the Supreme Court was submitted in an entirely unrelated case, in 2003.
Would it be routine professional conduct for an attorney bringing a case before the Supreme Court to know of and read the affidavit their client was submitting to the Court?
Given that the affidavit was submitted to the Supreme Court 31 years after they argued the case before the Supreme Court, it seems unlikely that they would have been able to read it before argument.
McCorvey was not given an abortion in Texas because her rape claim was deemed not credible. Did her attorneys disagree with that assessment? Did they inform the Court of the serious doubts that had been raised about their client's credibility, about the possibility that their client lied in the affidavit submitted to the Court?
The facts that supported their case were: McCorvey was pregnant. She wanted an abortion. The laws in Texas prevented her from getting one. The affidavit she signed in 1970 asserted those facts, and not that she was raped. Were any of those things untrue?
Oh, and do you really believe that the Constitution provides a right to an abortion? Do you think Roe v Wade is good Constitutional law?
Yes. It is.
Here is McCorvey's affidavit from 2003 about the case. Was the conduct of her lawyers up to professional standards? [http://thejusticefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Norma-McCorvey-Affidavit.pdf]
DeleteDo you have the link for the original affidavit and the arguments before the Court?
You believe that RvW is good Constitutional law. What is the Constitutional basis for the trimester system?
Abortion: the fast track to heaven. It’s almost cruel to let fetuses be born. Why would any sane parent allow their child to be born when all they have to do to ensure their children an eternity in paradise is have them aborted? Sure, you’ll be tortured forever (God has rigged the game so someone always gets tortured), but it’s a small price to pay for creating maybe 10 or 15 creatures that will enjoy true bliss at God’s side for all of eternity. Not aborting fetuses seems downright selfish when you think about it.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations to those 50 million new residents of heaven. Whish us poor suckers luck, most of us will never make it.
-KW
You're one sick puppy, KW.
DeleteYour humour is as twisted as your logic.
FYI: It's not funny, not accurate, and in now way relevant to the discussion.
Why, for once, can you stop playing the juvenile 'troll' and engage in an honest discussion?
Never mind. No need to explain.
We ALL know where you stand and what you're standing in.
If I were an atheist I would be embarrassed by your comments.
Hell, I am embarrassed for them.
You call the abortion of 50 million fetuses a "holocaust". Usually, the word "Holocaust" refers to the murder of approximately 6 million born Jews killed during WW2. In your opinion, which is the worse crime? The holocaust of 50 million killed fetuses, or the holocaust of 6 million killed Jews?
ReplyDeleteI don't "quantify" holocausts, troy.
DeleteBoth are unspeakable atrocities, and are part of the same fabric.
I didn't expect a straight answer, but one can always hope.
DeleteLet's put it differently then: if you could choose between preventing the WW2 Holocaust and the US abortion holocaust since RvW, which would you choose?
Your choice is simply one of lesser evils, Troy.
DeleteI refuse such a choice.
I choose NEITHER.
Further, I can only prevent - not travel back in time and alter history. So, I strive to prevent and oppose the evil that is the root of all the events mentioned above.
Which would you prevent, if you could?
The tens of millions of murdered babies or the several million murdered by the Nazi machine?
How do you justify such a choice?
"I didn't expect a straight answer, but one can always hope."
DeleteHope is a good thing. But, if you expect a straight answer - ask a straight question.
Here, I'll do it for you.
Q: Is killing babies in the womb as evil as killing adults in a camp?
A: Yes.
Keep hoping, troy. I refuse to play your "pick a holocaust" game.
DeleteI do what little I can to stop this kind of evil whenever I'm aware of it-- killing based on race or religion, unjust war, abortion, euthanasia, population control.
They are manifestations of the same evil-- the denial of human dignity and the denial of the right to life each of us is given by God.
Keep hoping, troy. I refuse to play your "pick a holocaust" game.
DeleteBecause you dare not say that killing a zygote is morally equivalent to killing a person in a camp. Even if your ideology tells you to, your humanity stops you from drawing that insane conclusion.
I do what little I can to stop this kind of evil whenever I'm aware of it-- killing based on race or religion, unjust war, abortion, euthanasia, population control.
What is it that you do besides blogging about it?
@troy:
Delete[Because you dare not say that killing a zygote is morally equivalent to killing a person in a camp. Even if your ideology tells you to, your humanity stops you from drawing that insane conclusion.]
You are partially right. I will not say that anything is "worse" than killing six million Jews. I will not compare holocausts.
[What is it that you do besides blogging about it?]
I teach at the med school, act as faculty advisor for Medical Students for Life and for the Christian Medical and Dental Student Association, am involved with the Respect Life committee at my church, give pro-life talks on Long Island, and I pray a lot. I have also lectured to a Christian organization in Hungary that is trying to bring Christian values back to scientists and physicians after communism in Eastern Europe.
I also advocate at my hospital for life issues, when they arise.
I teach at the med school, act as faculty advisor for Medical Students for Life and for the Christian Medical and Dental Student Association, am involved with the Respect Life committee at my church, give pro-life talks on Long Island, and I pray a lot. I have also lectured to a Christian organization in Hungary that is trying to bring Christian values back to scientists and physicians after communism in Eastern Europe.
DeleteMostly preaching to the choir, it seems. Do you see any results?
I'm not trying to play your efforts down. I think you're misguided, but kudos for trying.
It's hard to know about results. I do what I can.
DeleteA few examples can sometimes include christ, Albert Einstein, Gandhi, New mum Theresa, But also Martin Luther cal. And subsequently, Women and men gveryped stole Bradley carcar easy chair a close to and additionally they her created vocal singing back directly under the mike a romantic at nearness one to the other.
ReplyDeleteWe have to work with enough contentration to get a air force 1 in store work.. Kindly verify ourlevel of comfort don'ticemeant designed for the purpose of specifics of computer data policies rightsThank you register subscribing our iceCould, Repeat the process lovererInvalid EmailShaun Derry acclaimed Cambridge United's 2 1 win as being Stevenage"Amazing succeed Cheap Yeezy Shoes in" Because clhavingched their very own fifth correct victory skies New Jordan Shoes choice category Two.Piero Mingoia gripped a new major milestone eight moments anywhere Jordan Shoes For Sale since time ensuring United's first Michael Kors Outlet Sale be successful of Borough thinking about 2007.Derry shown he is joyful while using exactly u.
Next, Me install all of often the very shrmp. Gravel alternatively other kinds of miniature pieces were found to be introduced since finishes closed up. Cheap Ray Ban Sunglasses (Online privacy)Remarketing PixelsWe possibly use Coach Outlet Store remarketing pixels by for web site services social networking as well as adwords, Google classifieds, And therefore facebook itself in order advertising my HubPages in order to some moat people that have seen a person's internet.
Younger Norton passed prior to when emergency deckie's effectively seem. Toy girl little girls wished to test the entire idea the using cigarettes must have been a financial chances step to gain cancer of the lung, As he created a huge category of examples and consequently when put next those to an identical yet, cancers free hand group.
It was subsequently significant good situation. Immigration law and then practices administration proportion. The ordinance forbids virtually pretty much all of the businesses in the metropolis while using vinyl hand baggage Cheap Yeezys For Sale towards invested in products or services..