Why The Liberal Mom is Pro-Life

I should probably start out, and inform all of the good people who read this blog, that I do not have the same views on abortion as a typical liberal. I am 100% Pro-Life. Morally, I do think it is murder. I was 18 when I became pregnant. I was still in high school, and I had only been with my boyfriend for 6 months. I found out I was pregnant, at a Planned Parenthood clinic. As soon as the stick turned pink, I was bombarded with information on abortion. I was scared. I was in tears. I was a wreck. But I stared at them, and said "No." I later found out I was carrying twins. As terrified, and unprepared as I was, I would not, and could not have an abortion.

Today, I have two, beautiful, intelligent 3 year old girls. I love them more than my life. Is it hard? Definitely. Am I happy, and, regret free that I went through the rough pregnancy, and the three years of life changing events that comes with being a parent? Yes.

I know other women do not have the same morals as me. My morals, do not come from religion, or family influence, and obviously not from my political views as a liberal. They come from what I believe, as right and wrong. I can not use this as a way to argue my case though. It wouldn't be fair to force upon you all my beliefs. As Ms. Lib R. Tea has said, laws can not be made from one's morals. Instead, I will state my views using science.

A cell. The building block of life. The cell, IS life. It creates life, and without it, none of this world would exist. Each cell contains a nucleus. The nucleus is an amazing structure within the cell. Not only does it control the other functions within the cell, but it also carries an individuals genetic material, otherwise known as DNA. During fertilization, both the sperms and the egg's nucleus's combine, and with this, combines both pairs of genetic material, or DNA, creating brand new DNA.

Why am I giving you a biology lesson? Well, one of the arguments on abortion is when does life begin? The cells that are used to create life are alive. Wouldn't it make sense to argue that when the cells combined, when the DNA combined, that the life of the fetus has already begun?

From the moment the mother and fathers DNA combines, the life being created has part of it's future already mapped out. The gender, the color of their hair, eyes, and skin, certain personality traits, and even future mental and physical disabilities, are all permanently ingrained in the DNA.

So couldn't one say that a life is created when fertilization occurs? Yes. As weeks go by, the embryo gets a heartbeat. Even without brain waves from the fetus (which start about 40 days after conception), the cells are doing the thinking, and the working. The cells that are constantly dividing, and multiplying rapidly, are the force behind life, constantly creating a human being.

Who are we, as a society, to kill off new life? Some, like me, think life starts at conception. Some think after the first heart beat. Some actually think that the baby needs to breathe air for the first time to be considered a life. Either way, it is a human being.

In the end, the government only picks and chooses what science to believe. The government picks the easiest, and most beneficial option, every time. Of course they are Pro-Choice! Children are a burden to the government. Politicians support the mothers because it is the adults putting money in their pockets. Children can't offer anything to the them. The government doesn't care about the future, and what these kids have to offer. They care about only the RIGHT NOW.


"Global warming? Cut down green gas emissions? Help future generations? Won't that bring down our economy now, though? No way are we doing that!"

"Swine flu? Global pandemic? We believe you, and will do everything we can." (Not saying this is a bad thing)

I think it is a sad world we live in when a baby isn't granted the right to live, just because it hasn't breathed it's first breath of air, when science has proven, that they are alive human beings. Why are the women who CHOOSE to have sex, knowing the consequences, granted the right to throw their "problem" away? If these women were responsible in the first place, they would have practiced safe sex, or went to the hospital for the morning after pill. Instead, our government chooses to teach women that there is no consequences to one's actions.

So many families have been touched with infertility. Left with no option but to adopt. These women who are getting abortions, just because they can't handle a baby, the shame, etc ... are willing to give up a few minutes of their lives for a cheap thrill, but not face the consequences of their actions. They won't consider giving 9 months of their lives up for a baby, to face responsibility. That to me, is ridiculous.

Bottom line. If you don't think you can handle the possibility of getting pregnant, don't have sex.

Then there are the sad (and very rare) cases where women who are raped get pregnant. I am constantly conflicted with this one. These women did not choose to have sex, and they did not choose the consequence of an unplanned pregnancy. Do I think it's right that an abortion should take place? No. A baby shouldn't have to pay for the fathers crime. Do I think it is right that an emotionally scarred woman should continue with a pregnancy of a child who is the product of her worst nightmare? I don't know.

In conclusion, I want to add this list that I found on abortionfacts.com. I found it very interesting, and very true.

• Never, in modern times — except by a small group of physicians in Hitler’s Germany and by Stalin in Russia — has a price tag of economic or social use-fullness been placed on an individual human life as the price of its continued existence.

• Never, in modern times — except by physicians in Hitler’s Germany — has a certain physical perfection been required as a condition necessary for the continuation of that life.

• Never — since the law of paterfamilias in ancient Rome — has a major nation granted to a father or mother total dominion over the life or death of their child.

• Never, in modern times, has the state granted to one citizen the absolute legal right to have another killed in order to solve their own personal, social or economic problem. And yet, if this is human life, the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in America and permissive abortion laws in other nations do all of the above.

Is this what our world has come to?


Read more...

Why GOP Mama is Pro-Life

I want to be clear, first and foremost, I am a Christian. My politics are always, always, secondary. With that being said, it is an easy assumption that I am Pro-Life.
However, I also want to be clear that my way to argue my point on the abortion issue is not to point to God, or my religion, because, let's face it, there are an awful lot of people that have different faith than I do and I can't very well expect them to believe the same way.
I also want to say that I thoroughly believe in our constitution and I trust that our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they came together to write the words that have been the basis for our laws for so many years. However, I do believe there are areas in the constitution where it is necessary to amend the laws, and abortion falls under that (in my eyes).
Our founding fathers wrote our constitution back in 1787. As stated by Mis Lib R. Tea, the 14th Amendment states that all citizens born have the rights to...etc. And, looking at this in the strictest form, she is correct. Of course, if the constitution is not amended to include a fetus as a living being, they, in fact, have not been born and therefore have no rights.
However, there is something HUGE that is being overlooked. Our founding fathers did not have the technology that we have today, nor did their medical science come anywhere close. We can not choose to use some of the advances we have made in science for some laws when it suits us and ignore the facts that science has brought to light in other instances.
The fact is, life begins when cells divide. It is very easily seen under a microscope and a heartbeat can be seen via ultrasound as early as 6 weeks gestation. That is how far along I was with my twins when I was able to see both of them, their hearts beating, on a screen in front of me. Granted, I could not feel them moving, but in 4 1/2 short weeks later, I was able to feel them...
I am not sure what it is, whether it be political, or something possibly more sinister, but I find it difficult to understand the argument that the cells of a baby forming aren't recognized by our government as a "live being" and yet, those same politicians and Americans can recognize that a contagious virus that is being spread among the population is considered "alive". Are those cells not the same size, if not smaller, than a fetus at 6 weeks gestation?
Further more, I have real difficulty understanding how some in the political world are so at ease destroying the lives of innocent, unborn babies, yet at the same time, won't allow forests in California to be burned because specific spiders have their natural habitat there. Are they kidding me? A spider! But not a future human being. Actual laws have been passed to protect these spiders, but we can't pass laws to protect the unborn?!?
I have to say that this is a topic I take very personally. I am an adoptive mother. I am a former foster parent. I am the mother to 9 children, 5 of whom are handicapped. And, I am a sister to an adopted child who was a failed abortion. This.is.personal.
I get sickened by mothers who put their lives before those of their children and I have been witness to it WAY more than you would think. The idea of anyone, even a dying mother, choosing to abort a child, to save their own life makes me want to vomit. Why not just deliver the baby and give it a chance at life? Would that be so wrong? Even if it's not 23 weeks, allow it the chance at life, rather than giving that poor baby the brutal death of an abortion.
Honestly, look at it this way, if someone wasn't stepping in and ACTUALLY causing the death of the fetus, it would become a human being. THAT is murder.
Am I being judgemental? Yes.
Is it wrong? Absolutely.
If I am to be a good Christian, I am supposed to forgive.
I am supposed to not judge.
However, I'm not perfect and I do judge.
And, ultimately, I don't make that final judgement.
But, I'd like to think that I did all I could, in this life, to give a voice to those not heard...

Every science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed. Man cannot make principles; he can only discover them. ~ Thomas Paine
Read more...

Ms Lib R. Tea-Why I'm Pro Choice

Let me start by saying I am the mother of three beautiful children. I am a Christian, I believe that children are a gift from God, and I am personally pro life in that I have never had and would never have an abortion. However, I am also passionately pro choice.

I am pro choice on everything. So long as you do not violate the legal rights of another person, I believe that anyone should be able to do anything they want. For me, that means being a Christian wife and unschooling stay at home mother of three. If for you that means worshipping paperclips, smoking pot, and participating in a polygamous homosexual marriage then hey-don't let me stop you. So long as everyone in the paperclip cult and every partner in the marriage is a consenting adult of sound mind-huzzah for you.

How can I be Christian and believe that it's okay for people to choose polygamy/idolatry/abortion? Of course I believe in right and wrong, and those to me are very definitely wrong, but I also believe that God Himself is the creator of Choice. He Himself gave us the free will to worship and live as we please-and that means that not everyone lives to please Him. If He felt that it was good to give us that option, then who am I to stand in the way?

I also believe very strongly that the law should not be used to legislate or regulate people's actions based on personal morals. "Don't Kill" is a law based on morals you say, but it's not really. All laws in this country were designed not on morals (which the founding father specified in the 1st amendment were not to be legislated) but to protect the autonomy of each individual. If you look in the law (Constitutional or otherwise) no where will you see "killing is wrong" or "stealing is wrong"...it is always in the vein of protecting individual rights. If you commit murder, you infringe on the individual's right to be alive. If you steal, you infringe on the individual's right to their property.

So-why shouldn't the killing of a fetus be illegal based on the guaranteed protection of their autonomy? Firstly because in order to be covered under the law one must first be born. It implies this multiple times in the Constitution, but states it most specifically in the 14th Amendment where it says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." A fetus is neither born nor naturalized, and is therefore not under US jurisdiction, nor protected under the laws of the United States.

Let's take it one step further still. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a fetus is in fact a US Citizen protected by it's law-the law can only grant EQUAL rights, not superior rights. By making it illegal to have an abortion based on fetal rights, the law would be granting the fetus the right to siphon directly off of the mother's body in order to live. My husband does not have that right. My born children do not have that right. No one in this world has the right to tap into my blood and take my nutrients-to use my heart to pump their own-to empty their bowels into my body....how can the courts grant rights that no one has, and still keep all rights equal?

They can't.

There is no legal justification to make abortion illegal-the only argument with merit is a moral one. However, while the moral argument may be valid in the scope of personal beliefs, it has no place in a court of law. You cannot make laws based on morals, because that feeds into the democratic "mob rule" cycle of government. Whatever faith/doctrine has the most believers makes the rules? That's a dangerous game of chicken for Christians to play.

True, at the moment we are the moral majority-but I have no doubt that it will not always be so. Once granted the power to legislate based on morals, the government can and will do it again....but maybe next time it will be based on someone else's morals. I for one would not tolerate other people's morals being foisted into my life-what happens if I was legally required to do something I did not believe in? Or if something that I believe in was banned? Allow the government to legislate based on morals and eventually one-probably both-of those things will happen.

I'm not willing to take that chance just to stop someone from excersizing their God given free will.

In the end, that fetus is a baby in my eyes-and I believe they will go to heavan to be with God, so I am not sad or angry for them. As for the mother-she is obviously in great need, to commit such a dire act, so if anything I have only more love for her and I offer her my service. These are the choices I make. This is what I do because I believe it is right. Others make their choices based on what they believe is right or best, and though we may disagree on what exactly that is neither God nor the law gives me the right to make their decisions for them.
Read more...