By Rob Holston March 31, 2011
According to Ms. Allen’s citing the Establishment Clause states “precludes the government from endorsing Any religious precept.” Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, thou shall not bear false witness, to name a few are pretty foundational to the laws of this land, yet they were written 1,000’s of years prior to the Establishment Clause. The only citing of Christian scripture I cited (Ps. 139:13) was done as a way of giving recognition to your Creator because the scripture is unquestionably established & substantiated by universally accepted scientific facts of human genetics. Typical of ALL “choice” people, Ms. Allen fails to challenge the scientific facts or enter into the argument based on facts because they can see that science is not on their side. Ms. Allen says I “spouted off scientific facts...” She got that right. They are facts, NOT my “.....own viewpoints masquerading as science.”,as she states. If these facts were obscure, I would certainly cite the source but basic DNA knowledge and laws of genetics are currently used in all 50 states by by federal and state prosecutors to send criminals to death row or life sentences while defenders use these same facts to exonerate previously convicted innocent men and women. Your expectation of needing citations for my source of these facts is on par with demanding proof that gravity exists or that the sun, NOT the earth is the center of the solar system. Laura, if you could site a scientific fact that showed that a human baby morphs from a non-human to a human at some point AFTER conception then I would be compelled to agree that a woman would have the right to destroy this non-human life prior to the morphing. Lacking your ability to site any legitimate source, Wikipedia or otherwise, I pray you will be honest to your words and be compelled to share my position and represent the unborn when you receive your law degree. Some cultures practice infanticide. That is illegal in the U.S.A. because it is called murder. You may recall.....”Thou shall not kill.” Can you agree that the parent doesn’t have five days after birth to make up their minds to end the child’s life? Not one day? Not 5 minutes? Would you say before the umbilical cord is cut? Even the most liberal of “Choice” advocates would say that an abortion, by law and definition, can only happen prior to the baby being delivered. That’s because a delivered baby has the full rights of citizenship at the moment of birth. Most lawmakers are against partial birth abortions because the baby feels pain? looks like a baby? would be viable if it were delivered? would scream if it could grab a breath, the baby has changed from an “embryo” into a baby? Perhaps all of the above. Indeed many states have laws against “late term abortions”. I don’t know how many state’s laws cite the baby’s “legal rights” for the reason but it seems implied that the babies in these states do have rights not afforded other unborn babies. Laura, the call is up to you. You can play God and decide when or if you have the right to trump your baby’s life and end it with your “legal” abortion. You and the Supreme Court can decide that the baby has rights ONLY after week X or Y or Z or delivery OR you can acknowledge God and recognize the baby’s God given rights as beginning at conception. Thank you Laura for your contribution to this important debate. I’ll address some of your other concerns under a separate cover. Blessings on your continued studies. Rob Holston
Received March 29, 2011 - Published March 31, 2011
Related Viewpoints:
Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews. Your full name, city and state are required for letter publication.
|
