Every Child a Wanted Child

"A lIttle boy, a little joy!" 1920s baby

Every woman in America today has full and complete ownership of another person every time she conceives, and the power to choose life or death for that person. This relationship between mother and offspring is a violation of the laws of God, nature, and man. Until this practice is abolished, slavery will continue to thrive in America.

FOR CRISIS PREGNANCY HELP OR POST-ABORTION COUNSELING CALL TOLL FREE 1-800-848-5683

Abortions on video can be viewed online at silentscream.org, Abort73.com, AbortionNO.org, http://www.massmediamail.com/durarealidad/ . Children under 18 should consult a parent or guardian prior to viewing

"Every Child a Wanted Child" .This is a favorite catch phrase of those who support the continuation of legalized intra-uterine infanticide. It is intended to make the elimination of “unwanted” children sound compassionate.

Those who support this objective mistakenly believe , among other things, that the value of one human being’s life is determined by whether he or she is “wanted”. They presume to know that if a woman does not want the conception, she will never want the child. It is a critical error in thinking and one of those errors that leads to a high rate of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in post-abortive mothers.

Every post-abortive mother is a woman who wanted her child.

If that were not so, then the decision to submit to intra-uterine or chemical infanticide would not be a difficult one. It is a hard decision precisely because the mother actually wants the child, she just doesn’t want the conception.

These are women in crisis, not a mental state conducive to clear thinking. They want rid of the conception, but they don’t want to kill their child. They need to be protected from those who would take advantage of their conflicted state to promote infanticide.

I was an unwanted conception. My mother was 16 years old and unmarried! So what! My mother wanted me later. My 2nd and 3rd grandsons were unwanted conceptions, but now their mother adores them!

How many wanted children are walking (or even toddling) around today who, at some point in their life, were “unwanted” children?

In point of fact, every child is already a wanted child by someone, and every person has probably been an unwanted child at some point in their lives.

The waiting lists for adoptions are miles long , the unborn child’s grandparents might want the child, the father might want the child, and the mother is very likely to want the child if it is allowed to live.

The fact is , the unplanned child has many in the world who “want” it. The “unwantedness” is not coming from the mother, it is coming from others who fail to grasp the value of life itself.

The mother who is manipulated into intra-uterine or chemical infanticide is not removing one child from her life, but all of that child’s descendants as well...she is losing her grandchildren and great-grandchildren and depriving her children of becoming parents and grandparents. The 'Butterfly Effect' of one person lost, generations lost. This consequence of infanticide is increasingly felt as she ages, one of the reasons post-abortive mothers symptoms of PTSD increase with age.

Intra-uterine & chemical infanticide are unwindable events , and if (or more likely when) the post-abortive mother realizes the mistake, there can be no reconciliation with her dead child in this life. On the other hand, birth is never unwindable. She can, at any point in that child's life, relenquish the child for adoption or to the care of a relative, and have hope to be reconciled to her child someday... a hope post-abortive mothers simply do not have.

Intra-uterine Infanticide

Miracle Boy! 2009 baby whose survival with a detached and non-functioning placenta for months, was termed by his Doctor a "Miracle". When the placenta detached, his mother was advised to abort . She refused and carried him to near term.

Every woman in America today has full and complete ownership of another person every time she conceives, and the power to choose life or death for that person. This relationship between mother and offspring is a violation of the laws of God, nature, and man. Until this practice is abolished, slavery will continue to thrive in America.

FOR CRISIS PREGNANCY HELP OR POST-ABORTION COUNSELING CALL TOLL FREE 1-800-848-5683

Abortions on video can be viewed online at silentscream.org, Abort73.com, AbortionNO.org, or http://www.massmediamail.com/durarealidad/ . Children under 18 should consult a parent or guardian prior to viewing

The core rationale justifying intra-uterine infanticide (surgical abortion) and chemical infanticide (non-surgical abortion)goes beyond the superficial debate. The real question is, "Who owns the life in the mother?". In the answer to that question, you will find what truly divides the two sides in this debate.

In opposition to the practice of intra-uterine & chemical infanticide , pro-life supporters postulate human life is a sacred gift of God granted to the person to whom it is attached and therefore, is owned by that person and by no one else. This is actually the view expressed in our Declaration of Independence as our "unalienable" "right to life" given us by our "Creator", presumably at the moment of our creation, ie: conception.

In support of intra-uterine & chemical infanticide, the pro-choice abortion supporters assert that the owner of the body owns the life in her body by virtue of that life's complete and utter dependence upon her for its survival. There is no corresponding constitutional assertion.

Both agree our government has an obligation to protect our right to life and ensure no one takes away our life without just cause. They disagree as to when that obligation begins.

Those who reject abortion see life from conception as unalienable; But, those who support abortion see life from birth as unalienable.

The debate over the question of abortion has shifted from whether or not we are killing a human in the process, to a debate over who owns the life thus extinguished.

If the child owns its own life from conception, then it is entitled under our constitution to the protections of the state and it's interests must be balanced against those of its mother.

If the child's life is owned by the mother, then only the mother's rights, what ever they are deemd to be, are entitled to the protection of the State.

Therefore, it matters a great deal who owns the life in the mother, because that ownership determines the controlling interest in that life, its value, and the level of the State's obligation to protect that individual.

Each of us must carefully consider this question, as the ownership of the life in the mother has a direct bearing on whether we, ourselves, own our own lives.