Abortion and Illegal Immigration

[richardkelsey]

I wrote this on October 17, 2006. I sent it to the Asbury Park Press. They passed. (This should have been an easy pick for them -- I shoe-horned illegal immigration, abortion, and the death penalty into one letter -- which was within their word limit)

Anyway -- I post as a conversation piece.

Wading into the Immigration Roe

According to “government estimates,” 8-12 million illegal aliens are in the United States. That estimate is getting pretty old, and it probably needs an update. Like the U.S. projecting budget deficits, it’s probably a bit low – by half.

According to right to life organizations, since the judicially created right to abortion was found hiding in the U.S. constitution among penumbras, 47 million abortions have been performed in the United States. That’s right, 47 million innocent children were aborted for the crime of being inconvenient. That’s about 46,999,000 more people than have been executed on death row since the re-institution of the death penalty.

The numbers are startling. The story they tell is one that can’t be ignored. Having aborted almost 1/6th current U.S. population, it is no wonder why we are now importing, illegally, labor to replace the void. When politicians tell your that illegal immigrants are only doing the work Americans won’t do – maybe they really mean we don’t have enough Americans to do the work – thanks to Roe v. Wade.

The illegitimate child of Roe now appears to be a new under-class, imported to cheapen wages, exploited for the benefit of the few, and whose cost for schooling and social services is added to the bill sent to the average tax-payer. The correlation is striking, and the silence about the issue is deafening. The numbers, however, don’t lie. Illegal immigration is the unwelcome, surviving, off-spring of Roe v. Wade.

[richardkelsey]

calliope said:

RK -- So, let me guess -- you are totally against abortion?

Incorrect. I am opposed to abortion unless the women is forced to choose between her own life, and that of her child. (Probably about 6 cases a year.) No one should be forced, and no one is forced, to give there life for another.

calliope said:

A microscopic lump of four- to eight-week old cells is not an "innocent child."

That is just an opinion. Human life begins -- as a matter of science -- when the sperm and the egg meet -- and of course have been successfully planted. Some may not give it any value at that time -- which is a matter of opinion. However, that's when it begins. After that, we are merely having a policy discussion on when, if, why, and how it may be terminated. Since I cannot find any cogent argument for the arbitrary choice of killing it on a whim -- or even after serious consideration, I stick with not killing it period.

calliope said:

And, yes, for some women, a pregnancy is definitely an inconvenience.

My 3 kids are an inconvenience -- sometimes -- and not one of them is "viable" without I disagreeistance, that nonetheless does not allow me to discard them, whether they are 5 days or 5 years old.

calliope said:

Some women want to enjoy the physical part of a loving relationship without having to forced into motherhood she doesn't want.

Thank goodness for women who want to enjoy the physical part of a relationship! Have at it. Just take responsibility when the natural occurrence of your activity creates life.

calliope said:

No birth control method is absolutely perfect.

Except abstinence. If you absolutely do not want to have a baby under any set of circumstances, then don't do the one thing that you must do in order to make one. I am not Dr. Ruth, but I am sure a couple could enjoy the physical part of a relationship without the baby making part. In fact, I just watched the movie Kinsey the other day. Turns out, according to him, female orgasm, strictly through the act of intercourse, is rare! You d**n fakers. If that's true -- perhaps a women should be enjoying the physical part in a different manner anyway. Sounds like a win-win to me.
[/quote]

Of course, I am happy to hijack my own thread to talk about abortion -- but the underlying point was that little if any research or analysis has been given to an area that clearly has a connection -- illegal immigration and abortion.

[Marc LeVine]

Uhhh...Oh.... Here's a difficult one to win. Cultural, political and religious beliefs heavily factor in, as we all recognize. There's also a male and female (perspective) component that comes into play.

Sure you guys want to take this one on, here, as a Freehold Borough topic?

Marc

[richardkelsey]

calliope said:

It's her body, her life, her choice.

This makes for a nice NOW slogan -- but I am not sure you have one me over.

If you want to argue that because she made it, she can kill it -- at any time -- through adulthood -- that argument would be consistent, though not persuasive.

We terminate life, if at all, after finding it guilty, giving it due process, and exhausting all possible appeals. That method is very controversial.

Why we would empower a woman to kill a baby whenever or for "whatever" reason she wants, seems to me to be a policy that is suspect for many reasons.

My guess is you and I will not reach an accord on this subject. Again -- the point of the post is not for you and me to resolve the abortion issue -- it was to examine what relationship, if any, is there between the rise of legal abortion in 1973, and the explosion of illegal immigration in the 90's and today.

The correlation seems striking to me.

[Libyan Sibyl]

Wow, 47 million abortions per year - just in the U.S.! That should be a disturbing figure to people on both sides of the abortion debate.

[admin]

Libyan said:

Wow, 47 million abortions per year - just in the U.S.! That should be a disturbing figure to people on both sides of the abortion debate.

where do you read 47 million a year? That number was intended to reflect how many have been performed since roe v wade. It is still a huge number.

[richardkelsey]

calliope said:

I cannot see clearly how the two tie in. Can you explain further? If I'm being dense, I apologize.

Okay -- I don't have any empirical, study quality data. For example, a group did a fascinating study a few years ago equating voting patterns and abortion and theorizing that abortion had the net effect of costing democrat votes. Big study, made a lot of news, an interesting read. Not sure what those folks have to say today! Truth is, people change parties and people change voting -- so everyone is fungible.

On the abortion/illegal immigration issue -- state kept abortion statistics show that since Roe v. Wade, 47 million abortions have been performed. In fact, the first wave of those aborted under Roe have long ago passed child bearing years. (A 1973 aborted child would be 33 today. So we have not only lost the person, but the possible offspring of the person)

Removing this enormous number of new people from the Country has created a significant loss of people in that generation. Of those people aborted, numerous of them would have been poor and or middle-class. (Certainly not all)

The loss of supply in the labor force, particularly across the unskilled labor market, creates demand. That demand must be filled. Without sufficient labor here, we must import labor.

Now -- there are numerous other variables -- including the introduction of world-wide competitors. That increased demand for not only labor -- but cheap labor.

Anyway -- the point is, you cannot remove the supply of 10's of millions of people from a work force, without creating demand. To me, there is an absolute correlation between the absence of supply -- from abortion -- and the increase in demand there from -- fueling in part illegal immigration.

[Libyan Sibyl]

oopsy. still disturbing. 47 million is a huge number to comprehend for any purpose, whether it is 47 million dollars in the bank or 47 million abortions. Remember it is 47,000,000.

[richardkelsey]

admin said:

Libyan said:

Wow, 47 million abortions per year - just in the U.S.! That should be a disturbing figure to people on both sides of the abortion debate.

where do you read 47 million a year? That number was intended to reflect how many have been performed since roe v wade. It is still a huge number.

www.nrlc.org/

This is not per-year -- but since Roe. yearly rates have varied. The high mark in the U.S. was about 1.6 million annually.

[Marc LeVine]

I cannot see clearly how the two tie in.

Part of it IS Supply and Demand. But, there are many other factors involved such as:

1. Lower pay scales based on competitive pricing for goods and services. There is only so much you can pay when you make a penny on every widget yoy place ina box.

2. Lack of opportunities for skill development and career advancement, in many jobs. People never get ahead, so why bother? If your paycheck doesn't meet your bills, what is the point in putting in 40 hours? Illegal immigrants do not pay taxes; overcrowd to pay their rents; know how to better economize than most Americans; etc.

3. A society that entices everyone to start out as a "chief," rather than to work one's way up as an "Indian."

4. An educational system that steers too many to college and too few to vocational skills. 5. Parents that demand the same.

6. An economy that offers few comforts or much financial relief for entry level and unskilled workers, as they try to develop themselves. They frequently leave jobs, because they can't wait around long enough to earn more money and get ahead. Illegal immigrants have little choice and what many unskilled Americans consider to be intolerable is workable for most illegal immigrants.

7. Lack of automation in some industries that would help reduce the number of boring and unrewarding jobs that illegal immigrants now fill.

8. Lack of respect by many managers for less fortunate workers often have needs that require just a little more understanding
(e.g. childcare, etc.) than others. The work demands are such that low wage workers often flame out or get fired when personal issues arise. Illegal immigrants are willing to take more crap from bosses, because jobs for the undocumented are much tougher to come by. And, they need the money to send home to heir families. There is no welfare or unemployment to bail them out.

These are a few things I've learned over the years - the realities.

Marc

[cloris]

Whether you're for or against abortion is immaterial. There is no correlation between abortion and illegal immigration. Abortion is an issue that inspires heated emotions like no other. (as you can tell from the above). It also has nothing to do with the problems plaguing our town. Maybe its time to end the emotions now and concentrate our energies on those.

[cloris]

calliope said:

Marc,

All your points are salient and I understand those realities. But how does it tie in with American women getting abortions? I just can't see the relevance of a potential 47 more million Americans and illegal immigration. Again, maybe I'm being obtuse.

The point Rich Kelsey was trying to make was numbers simple numbers. He may not have done it well, but that's what I got from it. So what if he may be pro life and you may be pro choice, everyone is entitled to they're opinion that's the beauty of living in what used to be a free society.

[Marc LeVine]

All your points are salient and I understand those realities. But how does it tie in with American women getting abortions? I just can't see the relevance of a potential 47 more million Americans and illegal immigration. Again, maybe I'm being obtuse.

Rich addressed the issue of "supply and demand" and how anti- abortion might relate to having more Americans around to do the work, instead of more illegal aliens.

My point is that there are other problematic forces, at work, that MUST be addressed to meet the basic employment needs of American businesses and American workers. I merely saw Rich's post as an opportunity to segue into that part of the discussion, because these are some of realities that are often overlooked by many people when the topic of massive illegal immigration comes up. It's not about the potential number of Americans available to do the work, it's about why they won't take those jobs. Most of the reasons are societal, as well as economic.

Doesn't it always seems to come down to the same catch phrase - "Jobs that Americans don't want." And, to that phrase most people respond with a hearty, "that's just BS." But, it really comes down to the WAY Americans FEEL about those kind of jobs. Whether the are aborted or delivered, most Americans would feel the same way - it's not just about the pay, it's the whole miserable scene that goes along with it. The illegal just seem to tolerate it better than their American counterparts do.

Marc

Marc

[fiberisgoodforyou]

Personal view, abortion is not a means to affect Birth Control, however, as a Male, it is unfair for me to dictate to a woman, what she does with her body.

We all know that cigarettes and smoking shortens the life span of Millions. Chose to out law abortion, then we outlaw tobacco, and trans fats too!

Arrest the pregnant woman who smokes too! Just make it criminal to abuse the "Body Temple" of anything unpure and harmful!

By the end of the 1st trimester, a fetus is not much different that a petri dish mass of cells. It lives, yet it is NOT a life, it is not self sustaining.

WIthout a soul what is life? Does a Virus have a soul? The first trimester suggests many unanswerable questions, and there is one clear answer, it is not OK to impose your Conscience on the Conscience of others!


THE SURVIVAL OF THE FETUS: Why the 13th Amendment restricts the government's power to make laws against abortion.
Barry S. Willdorf
Posted: February 21st, 2005

It has been over thirty years since Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court ruling that limited the power of the government to prevent women from obtaining abortions. Since that momentous decision, our nation has been increasingly torn apart by the issue. Demagogues have used the issue as a rallying cry to increase their personal power. The clergy has been moved to intrude into the realm of government, imperiling the separation of church and state. Citizens accuse one another of condoning murder, invoking images of the holocaust and backroom butchery. Is there room for compromise? On the surface it doesn't appear so. Each side holds to perceived universal truths. One side shouts, "Life begins at conception." The other screams back, "Life begins at birth." This is a matter of beliefs. As such it is not amenable to absolutes.
With all of the shouting, however, it appears that one thing has not happened. No one has taken on the logic of the "Right to Life" position to its end conclusion. Where it leads is interesting. This brief article proposes to do so and begins with the assumption, for the sake of argument, that "life" for purposes of entitlement to human rights, begins at the point of conception.

Most reasonable people would agree that a right to life does not include a right to live. People die. Sometimes they die because their bodies are not able to sustain life any longer. We get sick. We die. We do not have the right to stay alive forever.

For example, there are five starving survivors of a shipwreck in a lifeboat. Three of them vote to eat the other two. Can we agree that in this case the majority does not rule? The three do not have a right to eat the other two, even if it results in their continuing to live. There is no exception to the cannibalism prohibition. The right to life does not extend to that situation.

Similarly no person can be forced to surrender a vital organ for transplant into another human being even if the operation will save the one without killing the other. We may volunteer to do it but there is neither law nor moral imperative that could compel the taking of the organ.

So, let's agree that there are limits on the right to life. We can live only as long as we can sustain ourselves or can be sustained by the voluntary support of others.

Beyond that, most of us would agree that all human beings have duties that go along with his or her right to life. I have touched on one of those duties. It is the duty to refrain from compelling involuntary services from another person. As Thomas Jefferson aptly wrote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Can we agree that we are all equals before the law? If the fetus is to have rights under law, the fetus' rights must be equal before the law and cannot be superior. The fetus cannot at once claim a right to life and then claim that its right is superior to the rights of others.

That brings us back to the lifeboat, which is metaphorically society or the government. Our constitutional democracy has a 13th Amendment that recognizes the concept that one human being does not have the right to compel involuntary service from another human being. That amendment states, in plain English:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

What is involuntary servitude? In Pollock v. Williams, 322 U.S. 4, (1944) the United States Supreme Court stated:

"The undoubted aim of the Thirteenth Amendment … was not merely to end slavery, but to maintain a system of completely free and voluntary labor throughout the United States."

In City of Memphis v. Greene, 451 U.S. 100 (1981) the Supreme Court reiterated an earlier holding that the Amendment has self-executing force, citing Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. at 439. That is, no additional laws are required to make it applicable to the relations between people governed by the laws of the United States.

The term "involuntary servitude" is plain and simple. A person cannot be made to perform services for another person against his or her will. Neither Roe v. Wade nor any subsequent Supreme Court opinion has defined the bearing of a child to be something other than a form of labor. Indeed, childbirth is described medically as "labor" and no woman who has been through it would dispute that description. Thus, it is plain and obvious that any law that forces a woman to go through the labor of nurturing a fetus involuntarily is a violation of the 13th Amendment.

Having said that, it does not mean that the woman may disregard the assumed rights of the fetus. If assume here that the fetus has a right to life, then all it has, just like the rest of us a right to try to live without imposing a demand upon others to assist it in living. A woman then has a right to be free of involuntary servitude at any stage of pregnancy. However, at whatever stage of pregnancy she is in, having determined that she does not want to bear the fetus, she confers on society the right to impose reasonable guidelines upon how that can be safely accomplished, giving consideration to the survival of the fetus. Thus, if a procedure exists whereby the pregnancy can be safely terminated but the fetus can sustain viability, society can assume an interest in protecting the opportunity for the fetus to survive. The choice of the procedure to be used to terminate the pregnancy should involve a balancing of considerations about which method is most likely to provide the fetus with the opportunity to survive while simultaneously safeguarding the health and safety of the woman.

If society chooses for whatever reasons, be they moral, religious, ethical or political that a fetus has a right to life, it must also bear the responsibility for the cost and nurturing of that life. It cannot impose those responsibilities upon the woman. That would amount to involuntary servitude and offend the 13th Amendment. It is the ultimate "unfunded mandate." Society must offer and the woman should be required to accept that medical procedure most likely to permit the survival of the fetus while not unduly endangering her life. But once having done so, society must take responsibility for providing that fetus with the opportunity to survive. Depending on the stage of its development, the fetus may or may not survive. That circumstance is true of us all and the fetus has no greater rights.

The ability of medical science to keep alive a fetus is ever increasing. It may be that at some point in the future a very immature fetus could be capable of surviving with medical assistance and the financial contributions of society as a whole. Once the pregnancy is terminated, the future of the fetus is of no special interest to the individual woman who has elected to abandon it. Those people who are morally committed to a right to life position ought to have no trouble with the government or even their own private charitable institutions shouldering that expense, since it would be their moral imperative.
Although some may believe this to be a radical proposition, if we accept, arguendo, that the fetus is a life, then it is not really so radical at all. In California we have a law called "Safe Arms for Newborns that provides:

"No parent or other person having lawful custody of a minor child 72 hours old or younger may be prosecuted for a violation of Section 270, 270.5, 271, or 271a if he or she voluntarily surrenders physical custody of the child to any employee, designated pursuant to this section, on duty at a public or private hospital emergency room or any additional location designated by the county board of supervisors by resolution." California Penal Code § 271.5(a).

There are similar laws in approximately 42 states. The proponents of these laws appear to be very much in the "Right to Life" camp. Therefore the proposal that would permit a woman to abort a pregnancy while providing a mechanism for requiring the procedure most likely to permit the survival of the fetus (while always bearing in mind the health and safety of the woman) appears to offer an opportunity for compromise.

Some people to whom I have presented this thesis have pointed out that the moral problem is only solved if there is such a procedure available. A woman, they reason, still may not elect a procedure that will involve the substantial probability that the life we hypothesize will not survive. Yet, this is no different than removing a person from life support, which society permits. An interesting practical example of this principal is the Terri Schiavo case in Florida, which the United States Supreme Court recently refused to hear. In that case, the lower court ruled unconstitutional a Florida law that delegated to Governor Bush, the right to make a decision whether or not to keep Ms. Schiavo alive on life support. They reasoned that the law invaded Ms. Schiavo's right to privacy.

Another interesting scenario involves the recent debate concerning the so-called "partial birth abortion." This procedure is done customarily after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The "Right to Life" advocates describe it (and for the sake of this argument, we will use their descriptions and characterizations here) as the pulling of the "baby" from the womb until only the head remains within the mother. At this point the "baby" is literally stabbed in the back of the neck and killed. The "Right to Life" advocates claim that this procedure is common and is used in fact for fetuses that are viable. Okay, lets not permit the "baby" to be stabbed in the back of the neck. Let's remove it alive. And then, lets put "Right to Life" money where its mouth is and pay for the care of the baby, sick, unviable, on life support, whatever. Lets fund this fully, as a tangible demonstration of our commitment to life. Under the 13th Amendment, the woman and perhaps her devastated family do not have to shoulder the full responsibility of a financial and emotional medical care disaster. We as a whole, we who make the law, take over that responsibility because we hold the value of life so high that we, of course, would be willing to dig into our collective pocket to keep alive this "baby."

I submit that terminating a pregnancy need not be different than removing life support. It is not killing, even if one concedes a right to life. The fetus might survive. Nor is the argument compelling a woman to maintain a pregnancy any different than the demand anyone might make upon another to donate a vital organ. That the demanding donee might not survive without the donation does not entitle society to compel the donation. While society may impose conduct or responsibilities upon us that are involuntary, it cannot, under the 13th Amendment force us into involuntary servitude. Nor should it fashion its impositions in a way that discriminates and denies equal protection.

By acknowledging the applicability of the 13th Amendment to the issue of abortion, we can overcome a significant portion of the divisiveness that this issue has inflicted on society while preserving both the values of life and choice. It is not a perfect solution, but it provides the framework for a practical solution. When it comes to a belief based argument there is little chance for perfection. However, using the 13th Amendment as our guide, a meaningful ethical compromise is possible that respects both positions while placing the burden on society as a whole instead of the individual woman. Moreover, such a solution is flexible, as it would be dependent not upon changes in the law but upon advances in science and the availability of specific medical procedures. Over time, it is likely possible that a fetus can be aborted at a very early stage and can be kept alive to full term. When that happens, the issue will simply melt away. It will become no different than "Safe Arms." It promises the best possible result for everyone involved without impinging upon any human rights.

[Marc LeVine]

PS. I'd be a fool to try and tackle the abortion issue, itself.

Marc

[richardkelsey]

fiberisgoodforyou said:

THE SURVIVAL OF THE FETUS: Why the 13th Amendment restricts the government's power to make laws against abortion.
Barry S. Willdorf
Posted: February 21st, 2005

I must have picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue. Barry S. Willdorf's attempt to shoe-horn a limitation on the government to restrict abortion based on the 13 Amendment knows no comfort in Constitutional jurisprudence. Even the people who made the right up, didn't try that one.

The argument breaks down significantly on several areas -- none of which I will chew my time up exploiting. Sufficient to say, the "involuntary" aspect fails to consider the "voluntary" action taken to make the child. For example -- it would be no defense if you stood before a court and said -- I did not murder that person because I did not believe that pointing a loaded gun at his head and pulling the trigger would lead to his death. The law imposes upon us a reasonableness test that holds us responsible for our actions when a "reasonable person" would have known the outcome of such an activity.

Anyway -- the abortion rights issue continues to be a digression from the point of my posting.

You cannot eliminate supply, in a free market, without creating demand. The 47 million aborted people + the children they would have had -- creates a significant shortage in person power.

That gap must be filled. As I said, and as Marc said, that is not the only factor. the demand is not only for more labor -- but for cheaper labor. If I dumped more workers on a market it would increase labor supply, reduce labor demand, and decrease labor wages.

The short-fall of available Americans created a need for other labor sources. With respect to illegal immigration, I do not believe in any way that illegal immigrants are doing the jobs Americans won't do. People who say that make me crazy.

They are doing the jobs that Americans won't do at the wage being offered. That is true. The wage being offered is a function of supply. With probably 20 million illegal aliens in the country, the supply is now too high, and wages sink not only for unskilled, but for semi-skilled workers who often make the transition from unskilled to semi-skilled in a working life-time.

The concepts are pretty straightforward really -- of course -- I did have to suffer through a brow-beating of law and economics to get my darn law degree -- maybe that is why the concepts seem more easy to grasp for me.

I guess the only way I could have sparked more interest in this thread was by adding religion. How about we fight over consubstantiation vs. transubstantiation?

[fiberisgoodforyou]

richardkelsey said:

I wrote this on October 17, 2006. I sent it to the Asbury Park Press. They passed. (This should have been an easy pick for them -- I shoe-horned illegal immigration, abortion, and the death penalty into one letter -- which was within their word limit)

Anyway -- I post as a conversation piece.

Wading into the Immigration Roe

According to “government estimates,” 8-12 million illegal aliens are in the United States. That estimate is getting pretty old, and it probably needs an update. Like the U.S. projecting budget deficits, it’s probably a bit low – by half.

According to right to life organizations, since the judicially created right to abortion was found hiding in the U.S. constitution among penumbras, 47 million abortions have been performed in the United States. That’s right, 47 million innocent children were aborted for the crime of being inconvenient. That’s about 46,999,000 more people than have been executed on death row since the re-institution of the death penalty.

The numbers are startling. The story they tell is one that can’t be ignored. Having aborted almost 1/6th current U.S. population, it is no wonder why we are now importing, illegally, labor to replace the void. When politicians tell your that illegal immigrants are only doing the work Americans won’t do – maybe they really mean we don’t have enough Americans to do the work – thanks to Roe v. Wade.

The illegitimate child of Roe now appears to be a new under-class, imported to cheapen wages, exploited for the benefit of the few, and whose cost for schooling and social services is added to the bill sent to the average tax-payer. The correlation is striking, and the silence about the issue is deafening. The numbers, however, don’t lie. Illegal immigration is the unwelcome, surviving, off-spring of Roe v. Wade.

Not sure about the glue, but the rich, vivid hallucinations from the Black-Opium may be getting the better of you! ;D

Sorry, but the assertion that Illegal immigration is the bad Karma payback of abortion, ...comming home to roost is a bizarre strech..

According to Hinduism a soul reincarnates again and again on earth till it becomes perfect and reunites with its Source. During this process the soul enters into many bodies, assumes many forms and passes through many births and deaths. This concept is summarily described in the following verse of the Bhagavad gita: "Just as a man discards worn out clothes and puts on new clothes, the soul discards worn out bodies and wears new ones." (2.22)

Why not add a Hindu spiritual spin, whats coming across the boarder are the reincarnation of the souls of the aborted. This is Bad Karma brought on by R v. W...

Illegal immigration is not mystical, its criminal.

[Libyan Sibyl]

FIGFY, keep looking in the Constitution and see if you can find the "right" to an abortion. Roe v. Wade is a good exmple of legislating from the bench.

Cigarettes, transfats and your other examples are things that people decide on to do with their own bodies. The abortion movement fails to accept that abortion is forcing your will onto another person (the child). You must first prove that the child in utero is not a person and not worthy of life in order to prevail on your argument. Afterwards, the argument of imposing conscience and doing what you will to your own body is a successful argument. Again, as I said above, otherwise the aborting mother is imposing her conscience and her will over the body and life of another (the child).

You speak of souls, which implies a Creator. Here is a basic religious argument concerning the beginning of life.

In the Bible, God created man in his own image. Therefore it has been said that every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.

God’s love does not differentiate between the newly conceived human infant still in his or her mother’s womb and the child or young person, or the adult and the elderly person. God does not distinguish between them because He sees an impression of His own image and likeness in each one.

[Libyan Sibybl]

I will stop the discussion now, because it seems too personal. Your argument, however, that God created abortion is simply wrong.

[fiberisgoodforyou]

Libyan said:

I will stop the discussion now, because it seems too personal. Your argument, however, that God created abortion is simply wrong.

Is there room for people who do not have a belief in a god, or your god? Again look at the Buddhist belief system about life, living and the soul.

Are we also to believe that the world is 5767 years old and that Dinosaurs died, yet Noah lived through the flood, as some (with scientific backgrounds!!!) would have you believe as their truth?

There are "Scientist" that claim carbon dating is inaccurate and very faulty method of validating the age of artifacts.

Some believe in genesis, the creation of the earth was a literal 24hrs (a day), yet there is no evidence that a 24hr solar cycle as we know it day was 24hrs, in fact, the fist "day" may have take 2 billions years (based on today’s 24hr solar Cycle).

SO who can define a Zygote as a life? AND WAHT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ILLEGAL ALIANS!!!

You believe what you want, and I believe what I want, and we all agree to disagree, as it says in the Bill of Rights and The Constitution!

So, I rest my Falk!

Have a Merry, Merry and a Happy Happy

[richardkelsey]

fiberisgoodforyou said:

Sorry, but the assertion that Illegal immigration is the bad Karma payback of abortion, ...comming home to roost is a bizarre strech..

Actually -- I make no karma argument at all. I simply point to the supply/demand reality -- and further connect the timing of the rise of abortion and the loss of labor with the timing of the rise of illegal immigration. Is it a scientific study -- no -- I make that admission. But it should compel some thought as to what relationship there might be between this circumstances.

[Libyan Sibyl]

fiberisgoodforyou said:

You believe what you want, and I believe what I want, and we all agree to disagree, as it says in the Bill of Rights and The Constitution!

I will avoid the religious arguments and abortion, I am more interested in where does it say this in the Constitution or Bill of Rights?

[richardkelsey]

When I wrote this letter in October -- I did not do any research. (Nor did I labor under the illusion that my idea of a link was an original thought -- not too many of those anywhere)

I just did a quick google search and found a few other pieces related to this link.

First -- it appears the Missouri Legislature issued a controversial report -- split on party lines, identify a link between abortion and illegal immigration. (Most hits on the subject cite that report -- though few if any discuss the report or the investigation, most discuss the controversy)

Also -- in January of 2006, some person I never heard of also wrote a piece on this quoting some statistics and drawing similar conclusions.

here is the link

www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/believe-it-or-not-abortion-causes-illegal-immigration/

Obviously, linking these items creates -- as we have seen here -- some real problems for people who find it difficult to discuss emotional issues -- particularly issues about which they have strong feelings -- in a dispassionate way.

A study of any possible link would be interesting -- I hope it is performed. I certainly don't mean to maintain that abortion alone creates the conditions for illegal immigration to flourish. I think, like Marc, there are numerous factors.

BTW -- we can tell this is a tough topic -- as my karma rating went down!

[Marc LeVinw]

religious arguments and abortion

According to Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Jean-Baptiste Leroy, 1789, re-printed in The Works of Benjamin Franklin, 1817:

"'In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."

Therefore, Old Ben did not consider birth a certainty. Does this mean he pro-abortion? Maybe yes or maybe no, but he WAS certainly wise enough to sidestep the abortion issue, here.

Brilliant man, that Ben Franklin!!!

By the way, some of us modern folk were not content in leaving old Ben dead and buried, so they attempted to determine his stance on abortion, based on a study of the consistency of his thought and decision-making processes. This is very interesting.

www.pro-truth.net/b76-ben-franklin.html

Best part. Regardless of what you think...you can't argue with him!!

Marc

[Marc LeVine]

PS. ....and that's only how the pro-choice people retrofit Old Ben's thinking to their benefit.

I must say that the consideration categories are pretty sound, though.

Marc

[Marc LeVine]

difficult to discuss emotional issues

Rich, I find it most difficult to convince people of anything when my words must first pass by the house of G-d on the road to the mind. If there is separation of church and state, there must also remain separation of science and faith.

If science can do no better than define death as the absence of life, how can they be expected to better define the beginnings of life than the division of cells. Since many religions still offer us a richer, fuller and more promising explanation of both human states, faith leads most of us to choose G-d's view over man's.

You decide which is more appealing. Is conception the ignition of mankind's divine spark or simply a sperm fertilizing an egg? Is death the precursor of a emotionless, rotting corpse or the beginning of eternity in G-d's heavenly kingdom? Even, Hell seems more exciting than standard decomposition, doesn't it?

Fact is, no matter how much medical science learns and is better able to improve on its understanding and explanation of life and death, religion's ancient and consistent dogma still remains - as we say in our own time - "Sexier" and just more appealing.

Marc

[richardkelsey]

calliope said:

RK -- I just exalted you because you had the conviction of posting not only a tough topic (for me, I agree and am not ashamed) -- but also for posing a rather innovative and compelling thought as to what is responsible perhaps for the tsunami of illegal residents flowing from our south.

Even if folks disagree with vehemence -- what is needed is the type of mind that can get off a beaten path and forge new ways of thinkiing.

So, for that, I do indeed exalt you.

I exalt you back for keeping with the finest traditions of examining these tough issues with honesty.

[admin]

I have tried to stay out of this argument. Abortion is one of the few issues that I had hoped would not find it's way onto this site. This is an issue that causes severe reactions and very strong opinions. This is an issue where people are rarely swayed in their beliefs, regardless of which side they are on.

I checked the security logs, and the above statement is well backed up by the large amount of smites and exalts that have occurred since this topic reared it's ugly head.

Having said that, all of you have conducted yourselves in a manner that is admirable. A discussion like this could easily go south, and all of you have been respectable and outstanding. Your conduct is a reflection of why this site is doing well.

I will exalt all of you.

[fiberisgoodforyou]

Libyan said:

fiberisgoodforyou said:

You believe what you want, and I believe what I want, and we all agree to disagree, as it says in the Bill of Rights and The Constitution!

I will avoid the religious arguments and abortion, I am more interested in where does it say this in the Constitution or Bill of Rights?

I refer to freedom from religious persecution and freedom of speak..thus..."You believe what you want, and I believe what I want, and we all agree to disagree"

[bergsteiger]

I stumbled upon this; I will come back to this later, no time right now.

Nice work Rich!