Since Roe v. Wade, forty years ago, there have been more than 50,000,000 abortions performed in the United States. I wonder how many doctors, teachers, lawyers, religious leaders, artists, musicians, philosophers, science majors have been prevented from entering this world?
The following email was received from Senator Lautenberg, of New Jersey.

Thank you for taking the time to write to me with your views regarding abortion. This is a serious issue that deserves much thoughtful, respectful discussion.

To me, the issue of abortion is one of personal conscience, (my underline) derived from an individual’s moral and religious views, (my underline) medical needs, and ability to take on the responsibilities of parenthood. The Supreme Court has upheld a woman’s right to make decisions, within certain limitations, on this matter. I do not believe that the government should intrude on such personal decisions.

I support greater government assistance (my underline) in making alternatives more widely available for women facing unintended pregnancies. Through counseling, social services, family planning and adoption assistance programs, pregnant women and adolescents can find viable alternatives to abortion.

While I regret that we disagree on this issue, I appreciate your views and will keep them in mind when the issue of abortion is considered by the Senate. Thank you again for contacting me.
FRL: irg

This was in response to my sending to him the blog entitled: Animal? Vegetable? or Mineral?  on the right to life. (In all fairness to Senator Lautenberg, he replied with a position.  New Jersey’s other senator’s reply was as bland as oatmeal. It paraphrased a series of open ended sentences, and stood nowhere. I still have his reply, should it be necessary for me to produce it in the future.) My objective was to get people thinking about changing the law, of recognizing that what was being aborted was not a tomato or a piece of vegetation, but a human being. The impregnation of the sperm into the egg begins the process of human life. It may be frail, fragile, and unable to survive on its own, but nevertheless it is still a human being. A human being who expects the rational, free will of its parents to provide for, to nurture and to care for him or her. I was not trying to drum up “greater government assistance”.  I was not addressing “moral and religious views”. I was challenging the killing of a human being, who has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A right derived from natural law, political law and the law of conscience. This is not an “issue of personal conscience”. Since when do we let a person’s conscience decide who can live and who can die?

In my post, I was questioning whether he or any political figure would/could man up to sponsoring a drive to overthrow Roe v. Wade, to show that murder is murder regardless of how fragile and dependent is the life. Apparently, my post did not state, adequately enough, the direction of what was intended.

So I will try once again. The farmer plants “a seed”. He knows ahead of time what that seed will produce if allowed to “live”. He doesn’t wonder what will pop up out of the ground when it is planted. HE KNOWS. So too, we know what will be produced, if the fertilized egg is unmolested in the woman’s womb. And the taking of human life, ANY HUMAN LIFE, is wrong. Will someone in government sponsor an amendment to pass into law that the fertilized egg has a right to life, as do all people? If you pass this law, there can be no Roe v. Wade. It would be a moot point.

Lastly, please do not look upon this as a Republican vs Democrat stance. I could care less what party platform a political figure stands on. I am more concerned about the human platform.