Take action! Save lives!

EDIT: It passed. ☹

Dear _____,

Remember the old phrase, When it rains, it pours?

Well, in the midst of this huge health care battle, Congress is attempting to sneak abortion funding into the District of Columbia through the 2010federal budget appropriations bill, an action that we know will lead to the loss of an additional 1,000 innocent unborn boys and girls every year.

Tell your elected representatives to reject this pro-abortion legislation.

We fought to shut down this bill all summer and now, with pro-lifers heavily engaged in the fight over the health care bill, Nancy Pelosi andHarry Reid are trying to sneak this legislation in right before the end of the year.

Pro-abortion leaders hope to break the longstanding policy of preventing federal funding of abortions without anyone noticing. The policies that the federal government adopts in our nation's capital often foreshadow policies they intend to adopt across the nation. I have news for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid: we did not fight against this legislation all summer just to give up when unborn babies and their mothers need us the most.

Tell your representatives that they need to oppose this drastic departure from the current federal policy of banning taxpayers from funding elective abortions.

Already, half of all pregnancies in the District of Columbia end in abortion. According to recent estimates, this legislation will result in 1,000 more abortions every year -- funded by you and me.

Tell your representatives to draw a line in the sand and oppose this deadly legislation.

For Life,

Marjorie Dannenfelser
President, Susan B. Anthony List
www.sba-list.org

P.S. As 2009 comes to an end, many pro-abortion politicians are attempting to rush through unpopular legislation. Any contribution that you can afford will be put to use shutting down these pro-abortion legislative initiatives.

The "Kill the Gays" Bill

Okay, Uganda is now considering the death penalty for homosexuality. Now, I think that Uganda is in Africa (I'm too lazy to look it up).

Regardless, this is just freaking stupid.

Why abortion is NOT a privacy right

In addition to the doctrine of reproductive rights, the pro-abortion crowd often cites the right to privacy as a justification of abortion. This clearly is not the case, as the same argument could be applied to child abuse or spousal rape.

Abortion is a violent act against an innocent human being, and, as such, the government has a legitimate interest in preventing it (in fact, the protection of natural rights is the main purpose of government).

And the Court has gone as far as to admit* that, if the unborn are persons, abortion is illegal.

*This admission is known as the "Blackmun Hole" and is the reason for the Personhood Movement.

Correction

The Personhood Movement is active in 32 states, not 37. Sorry.

Why abortion is NOT a reproductive right

In order to justify the defense of the wholesale slaughter of millions upon millions of innocent preborn human beings as a stance in keeping with human rights, people will invoke the doctrine of reproductive rights.

Reproductive rights are the rights of others to make informed choices about their reproduction; it is often described as the right to determine the number and spacing of one's children.[1] This differs from (yet overlaps with) sexual rights.

Now, there are two parts to this. First is the right to be informed, which consists of comprehensive sex ed as early and as often as possible.

The next is the implementation of the informed choice, consisting of such things as sexual privacy, the right to contraception, and the right to say no.

A clarification of what reproductive rights do NOT include:

Abortion is not and can never be a reproductive right because it kills an offspring that has already been produced. Humans are a sexually reproducing species, and, like all such species, reproduce through a couple steps.[2] Meiosis produces gametes and the gametes. The second stage, the fusion of an egg and a sperm to create an offspring (fertilization) is where the sexual reproduction takes place.

Abortion takes place after reproduction has occurred, and, as such, cannot be classified as a reproductive right. Even if humans reproduced asexually with a new organism produced at birth, Hyde-esque amendments would not violate reproductive rights for the same reason the Second Amendment doesn't give us taxpayer-funded firearms.

Abortion is not "forced motherhood"; it is the criminalization of prolicide.

As Personhood.net said, "The fundamental human right is the right to life itself. This is true of life from its earliest stage of development until natural death. Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right—it is the very opposite.".

***URGENT!***: Nelson-Hatch Amendment

This post was going to be "Why Abortion is NOT a Reproductive Right", but I have URGENT news.

Contact your Senators and tell them to vote YES on the Nelson-Hatch Amendment (the Senate's Pitts-Stupak).

China bans physical punishment for internet addicts

I... guess this is good news?

True and sad.

I may have posted this before, but...

Morally equivalent does mean politically equivalent.

I am very, very, very offended by the assertion that I am "anti-choice". You claim I want others to follow my beliefs and that everyone should be allowed to follow their own conscience. This is the relativist fallacy. This is clearly not true; if the unborn have rights, it is the duty of every human being to respect those rights.

Some people think lynching is okay.

Some people thought slavery was okay.

Some people believe it is okay to fly planes into buildings to kill the infidel.

Clearly, this is not an issue of being "anti-choice". I take it that you do not oppose those laws criminalizing rape, or assault, or arson? Does that make YOU anti-choice? After all, that IS forcing others to follow your morality.

The claim that I am a terrorist is simply absurd. I have never attempted to make a government surrender by force. I am a pacifist.

My desire to have everybody respect the natural rights of every other human being does not make me a terrorist.

It makes me a humanist.

EDIT: It has been brought to my attention that the author adds the caveat "as long as they don't hurt other people." Well, then. I guess he refuted his own argument.

Baby Velez

Read this article then come back.

Now, instead of addressing the humanity of the unborn, the author tries to go on a red herring tangent and address the logistical problems of listing an unborn child in a list of victims. Because the sex of the child is unknown, and the child lacks a name, Malusinka argues, he or she is not a person.

Anybody with half a brain can see why that doesn't make sense, but I know that an entire half brain is too much to expect from some people, so I will go into detail.

First of all, parents are typically given a number of days after birth to decide on a name for their baby. Does an unnamed newborn not have any rights? Of course (s)he does.

We know nothing about many casualties of war. Were those incinerated by atomic bombs never persons because we don't know their sexes? Does the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier house the remains of non-persons? Were their deaths meaningless? Of course not.

Now, on to the issue of the deaths of people not counted in the population. Again, registration of infants doesn't always happen at the instant of birth. And what about someone the census didn't count for some other reason, whether they be homeless or immigrants or visitors? Historically, was the death of a slave only three fifths of a tragedy?

...or, you could just list the names of the victims and add "and Velez's unborn child".

EDIT: The victim of the Virginia infanticide case had no name and was not yet registered. Does that mean it was okay?

Strategic Pro-Life Update

Senate Health Care Reform Bill Update

Dear [name],

I want to share with you some details about the reality of this health care reform bill.
The abortion issue is the Achilles heel of this terrible legislation.

That's why we need you to tell your Senator to block this pro-abortion bill.

The passage of the pro-life amendment championed by Bart Stupak (D-MI) in the House has thrown the pro-abortion Democrats into disarray. Diana DeGette (D-CO), the co-chair of the pro-choice caucus, has warned Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) that pro-abortion Representatives would rather defeat thehealth care bill than allow the Stupak Amendment to pass.

In other words, pro-abortion Democrats would rather risk the wholesale defeat of health care reform than allow a ban on abortion funding.

This will give a golden opportunity for a coalition of Republicans and pro-life Democrats to defeat the bill on final passage in the House of Representatives.

This is the reason that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are so focused on attempting to include abortion funding in the Senate bill. From their perspective, the Stupak Amendment is a poison pill that must be removed in the Senate for health care reform to have any hope of passing in the House.

However, Ben Nelson (D-NE) has said he is drafting language like the Stupak Amendment on the floor of the Senate and is threatening to block the bill as long as it includes abortion funding.
Tell your Senators to stand with Ben Nelson on his decision to stop this legislation.
For Life,

Marjorie Dannenfelser
President, Susan B. Anthony List
www.sba-list.org
P.S. Donate today to help us continue our battle to defend life in Congress.


Copyright 2007 Susan B. Anthony List

information@sba-list.org

1800 North Kent Street, Suite 1070, Arlington, VA 22209 (703) 875-3370

Post-viability

Some people believe abortion should be allowed until the moment of birth. I would like a justification, in the comments section, of why a 35-week fetus in the womb has less rights than a 30-week premature baby.

EDIT: Having chatted with some people, I have gotten an answer. They say it's so she doesn't have to give birth.

The problem with this is (unless she's gonna stay pregnant forever) that the only thing left to decide is if the baby will be born dead or alive.

Essentially, the baby can be killed to make birth easier.

:facepalm: