Remembering the Unborn

40 years of Roe v. Wade is an American tragedy. Today, we remember the 50 to 55 million Americans sacrificed on the altar of choice and pray for the renewal of a culture of life.

This entry was posted in Abortion by David Anderson. Bookmark the permalink.

About David Anderson

Councilman David Anderson is a citizen activist who has served the community in several areas. He is a member of the Academy of Dover Charter School board of directors, a former Dover Human Relations Commissioner, past Chair of Delaware Right to Life PAC, Proud member of the Delaware Army National Guard, former Because We Care Inc. alternative school board member, Republican committee person, and co-founder of the Delaware Initiative and Referendum Coalition. He is currently Huck PAC state coordinator.

21 thoughts on “Remembering the Unborn

  1. I recognize the sentiment, but the title is a bit incongruent. How can I remember something that has not happened? Unborn, unmade, unwhatever identifies either something which has not transpired or something which formerly done and subsequently undone.

    I understand your passion and I am sure you recognize that I am dispassionate (non-ideological) when it comes to problems and solutions. For me to remember the “unborn” the unborn would have to have an identity, an existence. Our society does not currently confer existence upon a “fetus.” The demarcation point between existence is birth. As Catholic I believe in a soul and that most logical moment for a soul to be joined to the physical is at the moment of conception. But my belief does not extend to establishing an identity for the unborn because, again logically, I cannot create a separate identity for the fetus apart from the mother, except at birth.

    If the fetus is able to survive apart from the mother, it certainly can have a separate identity, but it seems to me that a fetus is really part of the host (mother) and not a separate identity. Yet, if it has a soul, then I must be conferring some identity on it.

    Yet, there are those who wish to convey person-hood on a fetus. I haven’t read any proposed legislation because I find actions to ludicrous. But, at what point would they convey person-hood? Conception? 1rst Trimester? How would the authorities know when conception has taken place? Further, suppose that the technical means was developed that would immediately alert the authorities when conception took place? Now everyone knows that a “person” was created. What then would be societies response to that event? Would the actions of the mother be constrained (i.e. not permitted to consume alcohol while pregnant)?

  2. For me to remember the “unborn” the unborn would have to have an identity, an existence.

    Sounds a lot like Hitler- Jews and Gypsies, et. al., didn’t ‘exist,’ either. Because he didn’t bother to look.

    Look at a sonogram, and tell me that the unborn don’t exist.

  3. I agree, Rick. Unborn means just that not unformed. You and I were pre-born children, the only difference is that there was intervention to prevent the natural order of life.

  4. Notice the contrast between the mom who made that regretful choice and the child of one who chose life. Abortion transcends being a political issue. It is about real people. Families are never whole. Don’t confuse dispassionate examination for apathy.

  5. 1Dave writes in #1 “I am sure you recognize that I am dispassionate (non-ideological) when it comes to problems and solutions.

    We recognize that you are unfortunately fooling yourself with this inaccurate self-image, and therefore “There is none so blind as those who will not see.”

    Until you can recognize that you are thoroughly indoctrinatd into a left-wing, big government agenda, in which facts and logic play no role, you will be unable to open your mind and learn from the real world.

    May you one day become non-ideological as you desire. May your desires come true. But for the moment, you have not yet arrived.

  6. “Look at a sonogram, and tell me that the unborn don’t exist.”

    Did I say they don’t exist? What I said was “Our society does not currently confer existence upon a “fetus.” ”

    If our society conferred existence there would some recognition of it just as we “recognize” birth of a child with a “birth” certificate. This societal recognition needs to be formal and public. Today that is not the case. Legislature that confers person hood (and hence citizenship) on the unborn will need examine what it means to be a person/citizen in context of our society, including whether those who conceived in the state or whether the state could ever prove conception took place in the state. My point is and was that legal recognition begins at birth. Any other point prior to being born will be a challenge for society to figure out how it works.

    And by the way, if you all do not recall, I am anti-abortion.

  7. Dave: We have given the unborn some legal status in cases of injury or death caused during an attack on the mother.

    It pays to remember that all abortion arguments are not about whether or not the fetus exists or is alive; of course it is both in existence and alive, although incapable of independent life before about 22 weeks of gestation.

    The debate is about when a person’s rights AS A SEPARATE PERSON overrule the rights of the mother carrying the fetus. That’s a tricky decision to make, which is why both sides seek to turn the debate into other subjects.

  8. David: Could you please tell me where the “altar of choice” is located? I’d like to leave a graven image there.

  9. Geezer writes: “The debate is about when a person’s rights AS A SEPARATE PERSON overrule the rights of the mother carrying the fetus.”

    Not exactly. That’s not the debate.

    The debate is when the LIFE of the unborn over-rules the CONVENIENCE and/or whim of the mother.

    You are contrasting LIFE on one side against CONVENIENCE on the other.

    Life trumps convenience.

  10. “The debate is when the LIFE of the unborn over-rules the CONVENIENCE and/or whim of the mother. You are contrasting LIFE on one side against CONVENIENCE on the other. Life trumps convenience.”

    Sorry, Jon, but as a lawyer you surely realize we are not discussing morality but legal rights. Your argument is a moral one, not a legal one.

    A person can be both a lawyer and a preacher, but must save his preaching for the pulpit. It has no place in a court of law.

  11. Geezer,
    I had not really thought about framing the argument that way. If separate “personhood” status is conferred at the point of viability of the fetus, then it narrows the argument at least to when that point is. Medical advancements (which are often made using stem cells – go figure) have created the technology and methods for viability at an earlier point. So viability is elastic and sometimes dependent upon external actions/forces, which can both increase and decrease viability. Perhapsa the bioethics community has tackled this kind of question. As a non-scientist though, it is clear to me that I can have greater success in reducing abortion by decreasing unwanted pregnancy. Of there are those who would prefer to put the bible back in schools, where I would prefer to put condoms in schools. But then as an activist, I put my faith in thoughtful action to change the human condition. Others rely upon a book.

  12. Dave: Indeed viability is elastic, which is why we can now keep a percentage of 22-week-old fetuses alive despite their many disadvantages.

    The notion of enacting legislation to give just-fertilized eggs with human rights is fraught with difficulties, starting with the fact that currently we don’t have the technology to detect a just-fertilized egg; pregnancy is medically defined as the implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine wall (or elsewhere, such as the fallopian tube, as Jon has noted).

    Do we really want to create a society in which women must test themselves for pregnancy as soon as they have sexual intercourse so as not to violate the law? So much for the GOP as the party of small government.

  13. The debate is when the LIFE of the unborn over-rules the CONVENIENCE and/or whim of the mother.

    This statement sickens me. I have never met a real life woman who has taken the decision to have an abortion lightly, or had an abortion on a “whim.”

    That statement is right up there with “legitimate rape.”

    Is this what people like you think? That women are just a bunch of morons who abort babies on a “whim”?

  14. It is an attempt to make someone walk a path that they are not on. Abortion is a truly personal matter between the people involved and their maker. Period. Every person bears and carries the burdens that are a result of thier own personal decisions, not the Govt.
    We should seek to counsel and comfort these people, not regulate them.

  15. Did I say they don’t exist? What I said was “Our society does not currently confer existence upon a “fetus.”…Dave

    No, here is what you said:

    For me to remember the “unborn” the unborn would have to have an identity, an existence. Our society does not currently confer existence upon a “fetus.”

    Do you really need ‘society’ to tell you whether something exists? A fetus exists, whether ‘our society’ confers it, or not. A sonogram reveals a living entity, and ‘society’ doesn’t change that. Why not use your own two eyes?

    By-the-way, aren’t David, JM and so on part of ‘society,’ too? Or, does ‘society’ consist exclusively of those who agree with you?

  16. I have always like the way Colin Powell put it when he was asked the question. While personally against abortion he said (pharaphrasing) “That’s between a woman, her doctor, and her God.”

    Can there be any better way to state it? No one, abortion supporters or not, thinks that abortion is celebratory event in a woman’s life. Indeed it is an outcome of failure, failure to take proper precaution, the outcome of violence against women (rape), failure of education, and other failures. Abortion is not an event any woman would look forward to. Why anyone would frame it as a whim, is beyond me and beyond the pale. I fervently hope that Jon never get’s married and pray that he has no children if if get’s married and I especially pray that he does not have any daughters.

  17. For me to remember the “unborn” the unborn would have to have an identity, an existence. Our society does not currently confer existence upon a “fetus.”

    But given that they could possibly be given a birth certificate and incorporated into the national debt, it would seem that they could possibly be worth about $50,000 each according to society. There again, maybe I don’t confer existence upon society. (I just pulled something out of an occult/hidden penumbra of symbolic language and there you go… problem solved! Fun times.)

    In any event, if we’re into conferring existence upon the mob then perhaps each mother should pay about $50,000 in money/debt per abortion. Isn’t that what each citizen owes if they’re born and given a certificate by the $tate? Or is it the other way around…. and they should get about $50,000 worth of debt/money (ultimately owned by the private banking cartel) when they don’t have an abortion? Money/debt or wealth and things of value in the real world.. you be the judge.

    It’s interesting how the way that people are incorporated into “society” is often how the mob rationalizes aborting others or enslaving them with debt/money. But in reality, the mob of America Inc. is generally the richest nation to have ever existed… yet the rates of abortion and suicide among its citizens seem to be among the highest, if not the highest?

    Maybe it’s the result of everything that we’ve been incorporated into. All of us with valid birth certificates, anyway… I’m beginning to wish that mine was fake! (Just kidding. Although it would be nice not to be associated with society sometimes. I do not confer existence upon the mob and I just formed a limited liability corporation of one! Nope, still there in reality despite my attempt at legal magick (inc.)… that’s too bad. If you’re going to cast a spell then make sure it’s spelled right, I guess.)

  18. It is an attempt to make someone walk a path that they are not on. ….
    We should seek to counsel and comfort these people, not regulate them.

    That seems to be essentially correct at an individual level.

    But “society” seems to like to have an entertainer in chief engage in signing ceremonies, political theatrics and so on and so forth. If that doesn’t make a significant difference in the trends of the masses and the path that they’re on as individuals then why do people like to engage in it so often?

  19. British academics:

    [W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Link

    Notice how the well-being of families never seems to be “at risk” when the usual Masonic ruling class and British banksters are rehypothecating the value of houses to infinity and beyond, etc.

  20. it appears when the Catholic Church gets sued, it has no problem saying that it can’t be held for murder in the wrongful death of two fetuses because they aren’t people yet…..

    Which means every anti abortionist is wrong, and has been wrong for 40 years. Because it suits it, the Catholic Church is now saying life, and murder began after birth, not after conception…..

  21. The attorneys are just arguing the current application of the Colorado case law to their clients. That is hardly hypocritical. If the Church hired a lobbyist to keep or implement that or advocated this as a position that should be, I could see your point.

    Right now you have none.

    If it were I, I would ask the court to rule for the personhood of the pre-born and take my chances on the fact that the Hospital had no control over the timing of the doctor they had on call who is likely an independent contractor. Sue the doctor not us when we provided every resource available. Even if I lost, but gained the precedent, it would be worth it to me. Still that is not what the attorney’s are trained to do. They are trained to argue for their client’s interest in the case in front of them based upon current law not shape public policy. It is sad but true. Most people don’t look at the big picture.

Comments are closed.