‘Life Doesn’t Happen Until Breath’: Convicted Abortionist Gosnell Claims Bible Supports His Actions

Gosnell pdPHILADELPHIA — A preview of a film that centers on the “House of Horrors” run by a Philadelphia abortionist who is now serving life behind bars features footage of the abortionist stating that he questioned his practices while incarcerated until he read the Bible.

“My youngest son asked me, ‘Dad, did you do these horrible things that are in the newspaper?’ and I said, ‘Alex, I don’t want to lie to you. I really have to do a lot of reading to feel comfortable that I in fact was on solid ground in my thoughts and my approaches,’” Kermit Gosnell, tells the producers of the documentary “3801 Lancaster” in a telephone interview from prison.

“[U]ntil I really completed my first Genesis through Revelation reading of the Bible which I did since I was incarcerated, I really didn’t feel as comfortable as I am,” he continues. “I think it’s Genesis 2:7 [that] expresses the breath of life as the beginning of life. That God breathed breath, breathed life into Adam. The Bible to me is very clear that life does not happen until breath.”

Gosnell then defends his actions, proclaiming his innocence.

“I very strongly believe in my innocence, and there are many people who believe that,” he says. “There are many people who come to me who say that, ‘How could you be this terrible person and people are coming to you for 40 years?’ The story just doesn’t make sense.”

As previously reported, Gosnell, 74, was taken into custody in 2011 following an investigation into his practice called the Women’s Medical Society. Investigators had not initially been aware that Gosnell was running a late-term abortion facility, but visited the location over suspicions about the illegal sale of controlled substances.

“[Investigators] found jar after jar after jar of fetal remains and specifically severed feet in jars,” Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams explained in front of a panel following the compilation of the Grand Jury Report. “They found medical waste bags just strewn everywhere.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Williams also outlined that several babies had been found with their spinal cords severed. It was believed that Gosnell birthed a number of babies alive, then “snipped” the back of their neck with scissors in order to kill them.

During his seven-week trial, a number of Gosnell’s employees testified against the abortionist, outlining how they had witnessed Gosnell ending the lives of newborn babies by “snipping” their necks with scissors. Abortion worker Kareema Cross told the jury during her turn at the stand that Gosnell took one of the late-term babies that was born alive and placed him in a container the size of a shoe box. As he was carrying the box to the table, the baby “pulled in its arms” and then also pulled in its legs “to fit itself into the box.”

“The doctor then cut the back of the baby’s neck,” Cross said, adding that Gosnell joked that the baby could have “walked to the store and the bus stop.”

Days prior, Gosnell employee Sherry West said that she couldn’t bring herself to kill a tiny newborn that was crying before it died.

“There was this clear glass pan, and I saw it and I thought, ‘What do you expect me to do?’” West told the court.

“It didn’t have eyes or a mouth, but it was screeching, making this noise,” she recalled. “It really freaked me out and I said, ‘Call Dr. Gosnell,’ and I went back out front.”

Similarly, Stephen Massof as well that it would “rain fetuses” on some days at the facility, and that he witnessed Gosnell snip the spinal cords of at least 100 newborn babies.

“It was literally a beheading,” Massof stated as he described the “snipping” technique. “It is separating the brain from the body.”

Gosnell faced 263 charges in all, including racketeering and performing illegal late-term abortions. He was found guilty of the majority of these charges, including operating a “corrupt organization” and conspiracy, as well as one count of infanticide.

Most significantly, the abortionist was found guilty of three counts of first degree murder in the deaths of newborn babies, and one count of involuntary manslaughter in the death of a woman that died while obtaining an abortion at his “House of Horrors.” All charges involving the deaths of babies centered solely on those believed to have been murdered after birth, as opposed to an in utero abortion.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Josey

    This man has no conscience, I don’t believe he ever doubted what he was doing was wrong before or after reading the Bible as he states, he is a liar and sociopath.

    • Tyler Mitchell

      He is looking for justification for his pure evil.Having said that…the Bible quote he is using has zero to do with what he is hoping it means.

  • Ruthe Tate

    The devil

  • Emmanuel

    He is reading that chapter all wrong. He needs to go back and reread and reread and reread until he gets it. He has time so he will eventually understand.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      I’m not sure that re-reading it will help, Sir: I believe that he has hardened his heart beyond repentance (although I do not KNOW that), and this is why re-reading the Bible will not help him. He clearly has not the Spirit in him.

      As a doctor, he should KNOW when life begins, but he refuses to affirm that, because it would have gotten in the way of his wallet. He killed babies outside of the womb – hundreds of babies, based on eyewitness testimony from clinic workers, but was convicted on only a few – the slam dunk cases. So, his “life at first breath” argument fails on his post-birth abortions.

      • Emmanuel

        I agree

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          I really enjoy your posts on this site. Thanks for taking the time to do so!

          • Emmanuel

            You like my posts and others hate me. You should see the responses I get. I love it. LOL

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Well, if you ever let the truth out, you WILL be hated for that!

  • FoJC_Forever

    This man is wicked. Those who know the Truth will reject his blasphemous claims that God approves of abortion. Those looking for an excuse to compromise their religious beliefs will take what he (and others) say into consideration.

    Judgement is coming.

    (Another note not relating to this article. I received a Malware Warning when accessing the Christian News Network web site, at 3:50PM ET on Oct 7th. It might be a false positive, but you should clean your computer’s temp files, then update your AV software, then run a scan after closing your browser.)

  • Dave_L

    “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7)

    “All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, all the souls were threescore and six;” (Genesis 46:26)

    “And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.” (Hebrews 7:9–10)

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    Surely all reasonable men and women can come together and show both compassion for human beings and a respect for settled science. The argument against abortion is a moral and scientific one:

    1. Human beings have intrinsic moral value and fundamental rights. (basic and positive morality).

    2. Assigning rights arbitrarily amongst human beings has proven catastrophic. (history of the world).

    3. What is located in the human womb, post conception, is a human being. (settled science).

    4. Therefore, abortion kills a human being with intrinsic moral value and fundamental rights – one who is guilty of no crime.

    The only difference between a human being in the womb and one outside of it is size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. And each one of those factors, if used to argue for abortion, could be also used as a reason for killing a child OUTSIDE of the womb. In abortion clinics all across America today, nearly 4000 human beings with intrinsic moral value – guilty of no crime but their mere existence – are being led to their deaths, and gruesome ones at that. Can’t we all come together and bring our laws up to date with 21st century science and basic human compassion by passing a Life at Conception Act and ending forever this brutal crime against humanity – and the resulting and reprehensible trafficking in baby parts that derives its profit from it?

    • Asemodeus

      4 does not follow, since 1-3 applies to women as well. Including the fundamental right to their own bodies, as enshrined in the 4th and 13th amendment. You nor anyone else can claim ownership of another person. Even if you needed it to survive yourself.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        4 follows immediately from 1 and 3 – logically.

        • Asemodeus

          It doesn’t. You forgot to apply Constitutional protections to women.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            How does 4 not follow logically from 1 and 3?

          • Asemodeus

            You forgot to apply constitutional protections to women.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            So, are you conceding that 4 follows logically from 1 and 3, as you refuse to answer the question?

          • Asemodeus

            You don’t understand the answer. 1-3 apply to women, therefore 4 is moot.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            3 applies to the human being in the womb, not the woman. (Although over half of the humans in the womb who are aborted ARE future women.) Are you saying that 1 and 2 do not apply to certain human beings, ones that you just don’t like – for emotional, not logical, reasons? That would seem to contradict 2, no?

          • Asemodeus

            The woman is also a human being with 4th and 13th amendment rights. No human can own another, even if they need them to live. You instinctively already agree with this, but your misogyny is getting in your way towards admitting it openly.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “No human can own another”

            Great! Then no human being has the right to kill another based on claimed ownership of him or her! Thank you – you just refuted your own argument! By being in favor of abortion, you are for slavery of the child, followed by moral murder of the child! This would make you a consistent Democrat – an 18th century one in favor of slavery and a 21st century one in favor of moral murder. 🙂

          • Asemodeus

            Backwards. The woman owns her own womb. Nobody has the right to claim it without her consent.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You are the one who said that the woman claims as property the human being in her womb and who has the right to kill same. You are for slavery and moral murder – just like a “good” Demon-crat. You fail science, you fail logic, you fail basic human decency and morality and human rights. You are a moral monster.

            I wonder what it would take – with all of the information out there – videos and pictures and descriptions by abortionists, testimony, etc –
            for a pro-abort to convert to pro-life at this point? Basic science and logic did it for me, long before the internet became public and while I was still an atheist. But, with all of the visuals, with the womb with a view (ultrasound), a person has to be really beyond a moral monster to remain on the side of abortion “rights.” Either that, or he must be unbelievably selfish to place his sex without consequences ahead of the life of an innocent human being with intrinsic moral value.

            “I’d kill for an orgasm. In fact I already have!

            #ShoutYourAbortion” — Basset_Hound

          • Asemodeus

            I am the one that says her womb is her own property, not of the fetus and certainly not yours either. Perhaps you should read the Constitution and come back to me when you figure out how civil rights work.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You have made the human being in the womb the property of the woman – hers to kill or not, despite the fact that same human being is guilty of no crime. That is clearly slavery and moral murder. You have advocated the death penalty for 3000 human beings, guilty of no crime, each day in America alone.

            Not long ago, I had a pro-abort tell me the following to my face: “Children are the property of their parents, who have a right to abort them up to the age of 18.” That is a direct and serious quote. He admitted that it was 100% serious. I complimented him on his intellectual honesty – he understands full well the consequences for being in favor of abortion.

            How you can look at the pictures and videos of abortions, the sworn descriptive testimony by abortion doctors, the textbook graphics on abortions, the ultrasound videos of the human in the womb, yet still remain a pro-abort, is beyond comprehension.

          • Jim H

            It is not a question of who the woman’s womb belongs to. That seems a no-brainer. However you seem e that the fetus is some kind of parasite.
            There are numerous problems with that kind of argument. For one thing, the fetus is a member of the same species as his or her mother, and therefore can’t be thought of as simplistically as you would a lower order of creature, like a tapeworm, invading your body.
            For another, fetuses aren’t foreign entities, but the natural result of the human body functioning correctly.
            Last. doesn’t the act of creating the “parasite” constitute at least tacit consent for it to take up residence inside you?

          • Asemodeus

            It is a constitutional fact that the womb belong to the women, not the fetus and not you. You don’t get to decide the proper use of another persons womb. Again, read the Constitution and figure out what it says, otherwise you’ll never progress as a human being with decent morals.

          • Jim H

            “It is a constitutional fact that the womb belong to the women, not the fetus and not you.”

            I have several copies of the constitution, I don’t recall seeing the word “womb” anywhere in them. Could you please point out where exactly that word shows up?

            “You don’t get to decide the proper use of another persons womb.”

            No, I don’t, neither do you that is nature’s job.

            “Again, read the Constitution and figure out what it says, otherwise you’ll never progress as a human being with decent morals.”

            I don’t think that being a human being with decent morals requires reading the constitution. The vast majority of decent moral people who have lived on the planet were born before the constitution was written.
            The co

          • Asemodeus

            “I have several copies of the constitution, I don’t recall seeing the
            word “womb” anywhere in them. Could you please point out where exactly
            that word shows up?”

            The prohibition against involuntary servitude is, however, in the Constitution. Are you sure you have actually read it?

          • Jim H

            Yes, I didn’t see any mention of the womb there either.

          • Asemodeus

            Oddly enough, involuntary servitude means exactly that. You cannot force someone to serve another. Something you seem to be having trouble with understanding.

          • Jim H

            It seems you take whatever side of the argument that is convenient . You do not believe the fetus is separate person who should have separate rights. In that case, you see it is part of the mother. But, then you claim the mother carrying the fetus is involuntary servitude. Involuntary servitude cannot occur unless there is someone (a person) to force you to serve them.
            You don’t seem to understand you can’t have it both ways.

          • Asemodeus

            “You do not believe the fetus is separate person who should have separate rights.”

            No fetus nor anyone else has the right to another persons womb. 13th amendment. Are you sure you are literate? This couldn’t be any more clear.

          • Jim H

            “No fetus nor anyone else has the right to another persons womb. 13th amendment.”

            The fetus did not chose to be in the mother’s womb. It did not force it way its way into its mother body from the outside world. It is there, essential, the mother (her body) built it there, only after she (generally) allowed a (male) person into her body.

            Here’s quote from Feminist dot com, concerning the history of abortion:

            “The U.S. followed as individual states began to outlaw abortion. By 1880, most abortions were illegal in the U.S.”

            This was despite the fact that the 13th amendment had been ratified 15 years earlier (1865).

            Besides, the constitution is ultimately interpreted by the Supreme court. As I mentioned elsewhere, the SCOTUS decision in Roe v Wade acknowledged that the right to abortion was not unlimited. Additionally, no member of the Supreme Court has ever equated the denial of abortion rights to compulsory motherhood, or determined that abortion bans violate the Thirteenth Amendment.
            “Are you sure you are literate?”

            No, I’m not illiterate, but you seem unable to do much more than repeatedly babble about the 13th amendment and your personal opinion about it.

          • Asemodeus

            The fetus doesn’t have ownership rights to another person. Why are you having trouble with this?

          • Jim H

            Ethics 101

          • Asemodeus

            Exactly. This was figured out 150 years ago. Why are you having such trouble?

          • Jim H

            “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
            – Bertrand Russell

            The founders established the Constitution to do just two things; (1) Establish a federal government for the United States of America, and (2) delegate to the federal government certain, limited powers. The Constitution was not intended to give you rights. The founders considered your rights to be “God-given” or “natural rights” that you were born with.

            The constitution does try to provide protection for those rights it determines worthy of protection. Hopefully which rights are protected and which aren’t are based on ethical considerations. However, but it does not logically follow that they must be. The South drafted its own constitution during the civil war. It explicitly protected the right to own slaves. That didn’t make slavery ethical. The 13th amendment of the U.S. was passed to provide an explicit prohibition of slavery. That doesn’t mean it was ethical before the amendment passed, or it wouldn’t be if the amendment wasn’t passed.

            Constitutions are written by men and are not infallible. Did you think someone comes down from a mountain with a constitution, or amendments, written in stone?

            You cannot simply ethically assume that a woman’s right to have an abortion is a question of individual liberty, and that the fetus is not worthy of protection and, therefore irrelevant to the ethical considerations.

            The larger ethical question is how do we determine who has a legitimate interest in a given arena of ethical decision-making and about how we assign relative weight to those interests.

            In the case of abortion you see the only person with a legitimate interest is the woman, because you try to bypass the issue of the ethical/moral status of the fetus, and instead make the right to abortion a question of individual liberty.

            But, if the woman is not the only one with a legitimate interest, you cannot just assume that it is woman’s right to have an abortion is a question of individual liberty. You must first established that the fetus is not a being worthy of protection and has a legitimate interest (survival).

            If we establish that the fetus has a legitimate interest then we need to determine how to weight those interests against those of the women. In Roe v Wade, the decision weighted the interests based upon the trimester.

            In the first trimester the interests were weighted completely on the woman’s side. In the second trimester the weight of the interests began to shift to the fetus, but if it came to whose life took precedence the woman’s interests prevailed. It was only in the third trimester that the fetus’ interests predominated.

            Even in Planned Parenthood v Casey, SCOTUS upheld the “essential holding” in Roe, recognizing that women have some constitutional liberty to terminate their pregnancies, but overturning the Roe trimester framework in favor of a viability analysis.

            They found that continuing advancements in medical technology had proven that a fetus could be considered viable at 22 or 23 weeks rather than at the 28 weeks previously understood by the Court in Roe., thus redrawing the line of increasing state interest at viability because of increasing medical accuracy about when viability takes place. Likewise, the court felt that viability was “more workable” than the trimester framework.

            By the way, SCOTUS also asserted that the fundamental right to abortion is grounded in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, (not the Thirteenth).

            Regardless, in its decisions SCOTUS has shown that allowing laws that limit abortions to certain circumstances is constitutional.

            So the question of the moral status of the fetus cannot be avoided.

          • Asemodeus

            Section 1. 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.
            Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. – 13th amendment.

            Why is this hard for you to comprehend?

          • Jim H

            It isn’t hard to understand. I completely understand what you are saying. I just think it is doesn’t apply. The fact that instead of addressing what I said, you just keep repeating yourself, makes it apparent that efforts at reasonable discussion with you are a waste of time.

          • Asemodeus

            And yet you refuse to understand it. Why is that? What is preventing you from reading the plain text of the amendment? Misogyny? Willful ignorance? Illiteracy? Do you know what involuntary means?

          • Jim H

            I’m done wasting my time writing replies that you obviously don’t read or can’t comprehend.

          • Asemodeus

            Illiteracy it is then. You don’t know what involuntary means, since you don’t view others as individuals with their own rights. You just view your own rights. Which is highly unchristian like of you.

          • Jim H

            “Illiteracy it is then.”
            No, rubber and glue it is then.

            “You don’t know what involuntary means, since you don’t view others as individuals with their own rights.”

            Yes, more so than you do. I consider the rights of both lives involved, you only care about the rights of one.

            “You just view your own rights.”

            My rights have nothing to do with it.

            “Which is highly unchristian like of you.”

            Where did I say I was a Christian?

          • Asemodeus

            “Yes, more so than you do. I consider the rights of both lives involved, you only care about the rights of one.”

            There is no such thing as a right to another persons body. 13th amendment. You continue to deny the obvious.

            “My rights have nothing to do with it.”

            This is all about your desire to enforce your perverted idea of your rights onto powerless women. You only represent your desire for control.

          • Jim H

            “There is no such thing as a right to another persons body.”

            How do you know that?

            “13th amendment. You continue to deny the obvious.”

            You continue to mindlessly repeat that.

            “This is all about your desire to enforce your perverted idea of your rights onto powerless women. You only represent your desire for control.”
            You don’t even know what my position is regarding the appropriate legal status of abortion. I have only talked about the ethical/moral issues involved and what SCOTUS has said. I haven’t stated any desire to legislate anything that would control anyone.
            You are every bit as bad about jumping to conclusions about people, and as adverse to listening and actually discussing an issue as the hard core conservative fundies who post here.

          • Asemodeus

            “How do you know that?”

            The 13th Amendment. This was figured out 150 years ago. What is taking you so long?

            “You continue to mindlessly repeat that.”

            Because you keep denying the obvious.

            “You are every bit as bad about jumping to conclusions about people, and
            as adverse to listening and actually discussing an issue as the hard
            core conservative fundies who post here.”

            And yet it is you that repeat their talking points. Odd that.

          • Jim H

            If it seems to you that I repeat their talking points so, it can only be because some of them actually have talking points, you seem to not really understand that concept. You think a discussion is to just keep repeating yourself and telling people it is obvious.

            “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein

          • Asemodeus

            “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible
            propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them” – Thomas Jefferson.

            My argument is based off of morality and law. You don’t want to deal with it directly, so you keep denying the obvious. It’s sad watching you do this to yourself.

          • Jim H

            “My argument is based off of morality and law.”

            No you don’t even want to discuss morality or ethics, you just repeat how clearly the 13th amendment is. You fail to show a single instance where a court has declared your position to be correct and you ignore cases I present that shows the courts have shown they believe otherwise.

            “You don’t want to deal with it directly, so you keep denying the obvious.”

            I have dealt with it directly by presenting SCOTUS decisions that showed the court didn’t share your opinion. If you cannot show evidence that a court has ruled otherwise, your interpretation of the 13th amendment is not obviously correct, in fact it would appear to just be wrong.

            “It’s sad watching you do this to yourself.”
            Its only sad because I keep wasting my time with you.

          • Asemodeus

            “No you don’t even want to discuss morality or ethics, you just . repeat how clearly the 13th amendment is.”

            Because you keep saying really dumb questions. Like this one:

            “”There is no such thing as a right to another persons body.”

            How do you know that?”

            If you didn’t know what was in the 13th amendment, then how is anyone supposed to take you seriously?

            “I have dealt with it directly by presenting SCOTUS decisions that showed the court didn’t share your opinion.”

            Wrong. You cited Planned Parenthood v Casey. Nowhere in that decision was the 13th amendment used. Again you have trouble with reading comprehension. Restricting abortion to the point of viability is also well within 13th amendment right, as the woman doesn’t have to serve the fetus at that point.

            “:If you cannot show evidence that a court has ruled otherwise, your interpretation of the 13th amendment is not obviously correct”

            Which is a basic logic fail. Only when does the supreme court use the 13th amendment argument to uphold abortions is when we can assess what they think about it. I am presenting what I am thinking about it. You’re presupposing a unknown outcome. You really should know better.

            “Its only sad because I keep wasting my time with you.”

            Let me know when you get around to actually reading the 13th amendment.

          • Jim H

            The Thirteenth Amendment reads as follows:

            1. 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.

            2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by
            appropriate legislation.

            Your claim is that the amendment is violated by laws that prohibit abortion. When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to “involuntary servitude” in violation of the amendment.

            Again, it is not that I don’t understand. It is simply that I do not believe that argument is as obviously true as you do, and that even if it was, that would not remove the ethical concerns which you deny, but I believe to be inescapable.
            I have already laid out my case for the ethical questions involved. You chose not to comment on the points I elaborated. So, I will concentrate on showing that the constitutional/legal issues involved in your arguments are hardly obvious. To that end I present the following:

            Andrew Koppelman a professor of law and political science at Northwestern University advocated your position. There were a lot of negative responses to his work. According to Professor Koppelman, John McGinnis, in Decentralizing Constitutional Provisions Versus Judicial Oligarchy: A Reply to Professor Koppelman, 20 Const. Commentary 39, 56 (2003), offered the fullest and most thoughtful response that had yet been published. I offer it below:

            “It is not only that no reasonable person at the time would have thought that
            unwanted pregnancy was a form of involuntary servitude. Even now such an
            argument would be treated at best as a pun on labor rather than seriously
            advanced in a court of law. Servitude, particularly as the context of an amendment that was designed to end slavery relates to economic obligation, not familial obligations. Unwanted pregnancy is no more involuntary servitude than are the other unwanted obligations that may force parents to work for their children, like child support. In fact it is less so because these other obligations may trigger imprisonment if they are not kept. But even assuming the alternative universe in which a Court would apply this clause to the issue of abortion, Professor Koppelman still must make broad political assertions about the subordination of women to counter the obvious point that at least some women voluntarily become pregnant and then, changing their mind, wish to terminate a pregnancy.

            John McGinnis is a professor at Northwestern University School of Law and author of over 90 academic and popular articles and essays. His popular writings have been published in The Wall Street Journal, National Review, and Policy Review. McGinnis teaches and writes on constitutional and international law. In constitutional law.

          • Jim H

            The Thirteenth Amendment reads as follows:

            1. 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.

            2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

            Your claim is that the amendment is violated by laws that prohibit abortion. When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to “involuntary servitude” in violation of the amendment.

            However, no U.S. court has yet accepted such an argument— Roe v. Rampton, 394 F. Supp. 677 (D Utah 1975) (Ritter C.J. dissenting); Jane L. v. Bangerter, 794 F. Supp. 1537 (D Utah 1992).

            Differing views have been expressed as to whether the argument is so unpersuasive as to be “frivolous”—Jane L. v. Bangerter, 61 F.3d 1505, 1514–1515 (10th Cir. 1995).

            One major difficulty with the argument relates to the claim that pregnancy and child-bearing are within the scope of the term “servitude”.—Vieira, Norman, “Hardwick and the Right of Privacy” 55 University of Chicago Law Review 1181, 1189–1191 (1988).

            “It is not only that no reasonable person at the time would have thought that unwanted pregnancy was a form of involuntary servitude. Even now such an argument would be treated at best as a pun on labor rather than seriously advanced in a court of law. Servitude, particularly as the context of an amendment that was designed to end slavery relates to economic obligation, not familial obligations. Unwanted pregnancy is no more involuntary servitude than are the other unwanted obligations that may force parents to work for their children, like child support. In fact it is less so because these other obligations may trigger imprisonment if they are not kept.”
            -John Oldham McGinnis

            McGinnis is a professor at Northwestern University School of Law and author of over 90 academic and popular articles and essays. His popular writings have been published in The Wall Street Journal, National Review, and Policy Review. McGinnis teaches and writes on constitutional and international law.

          • Jim H

            Couldn’t it be argued that if she consented to unprotected intercourse, she has given implicit consent to what could result?

          • Asemodeus

            One decision doesn’t negate the possibility of another. Learn logic.

          • Jim H

            Learn ethics.

      • LadyGreenEyes

        Under that logic, the woman cannot claim ownership of the baby, either, and cannot have the baby killed.

        • Asemodeus

          A fetus doesn’t have the right to anyones womb and a persons right to their own person is enshrined in the 4th and 13th amendments.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            The baby is a person, and no claims to the contrary will change that fact. Organs aren’t harvested from non-people.

          • Asemodeus

            A woman is a person, and no claims to the contrary will change the fact that she has a right to her own persons. 4th and 13th amendments. Nobody can claim ownership of her body, even if they need it to live. To claim otherwise is monstrous.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            A woman who has her child killed is a murderess. No two ways about it. To claim otherwise is monstrous.

          • Asemodeus

            A conservative that violates a woman’s 4th and 13th amendment rights to her own body is a slaver. You don’t get to decide how a woman uses her body against her consent. We stopped that practice 150 years ago. So thanks for demonstrating that you have no moral compass, and would gleefully enslave half the human populace to service your sick ideology.

            You are sick and need professional help.

    • Tony

      The Legal Murder the Legal Kill. Or the definition for abortion In God’s dictionary is Premeditated Murder. I second that. So people on Life Support are not alive. People in a coma.. So unplug
      them then put them in a a Grave too????? I was in a medical Coma and by
      this i didn’t deserve to live and be a father / Husband !!! Breath ? Is a
      Machine doing it constitute Life ??? Abortion is Premeditated Murder.
      The
      Legal Murder of Million / Billions world wide.I know this in my own
      life for a month and a half. 2008 Oct. 5 to mid November. so what am i
      an undead walking the Earth now ? Ok the last for was meant to be funny
      But , this is my life’s history. I have been told i am a walking
      Miracle.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Amen, Tony! You ARE a walking miracle – in some sense, we all are. God bless you for sharing your beautiful testimony! Abortion most certainly is premeditated murder.

  • Patrick Gildea

    monster

  • Peter Leh

    ‘Life Doesn’t Happen Until Breath”

    so those on life support are not “alive”? indeed they are sir… indeed they are.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Excellent, Peter – you brought your A-game tonight!

      • Peter Leh

        i always bring my A game. 🙂

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          I might have to debate you there, but even if you don’t ALWAYS bring your A-game, you do always post interesting thoughts! 🙂

          • Peter Leh

            we are more alike than you believe. 🙂

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            There is no need to insult yourself like that, Peter. 🙂

          • Peter Leh

            HA!

    • Tony

      I second that. So people on Life Support are not alive. People in a coma.. So unplug
      them then put them in a a Grave too????? I was in a medical Coma and by
      this i didn’t deserve to live and be a father / Husband !!! Breath ? Is a
      Machine doing it constitute Life ??? Abortion is Premeditated Murder.
      The Legal Murder of Million / Billions world wide.I know this in my own life for a month and a half. 2008 Oct. 5 to mid November. so what am i an undead walking the Earth now ? Ok the last for was meant to be funny But , this is my life’s history. I have been told i am a walking Miracle.

  • LadyGreenEyes

    Anything this sort of scum states, sane people should believe the opposite.

    • Jim H

      According to Judaism 101 and other sources I checked, the Jewish Talmud holds that all life is precious but that a fetus is not a person, in the sense of termination of pregnancy being considered murder. If a woman’s life is endangered by a pregnancy, an abortion is permitted. However, if the “greater part” of the fetus has emerged from the womb, then its life may not be taken even to save the woman’s, “because you cannot choose between one human life and another”.

      I disagree with the belief that a fetus is not a person until half way out of the womb, but I don’t think Jews are all scum and insane because they do.

      • LadyGreenEyes

        Well, the Bible tells us that God knew us before we were even in the womb, so a baby in the womb is a person in my book!

        From a scientific standpoint, when you can see hands and feet, fingers and toes, and a face, at 11-12 weeks in the womb, that’s a person. I have seen that myself. There is no way anyone can see a baby at that stage, and not believe that they are seeing a tiny person. People who don’t understand this aren’t all evil, of course; many are simply mislead and misinformed. This sort of thing is the biggest reason abortion providers protested mandatory ultrasounds before an abortion; because many women, upon seeing the child, wouldn’t go through with the abortion. In our case, there were complications, so an early look was needed. All turned out well, and the profile we saw then, you could ID as her today.

        Tiny, very dependent on the mother, but totally human.

        • Jim H

          That wasn’t the question. It was whether Jews fit your definition of being scum and insane.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Gosnell is the one referred to in my comment. He’s scum.

          • Jim H

            Yes, I know that you were referring to Gosnell. But, I’m asking if having that belief makes him scum and insane, wouldn’t it make anyone who held the same belief also scum and insane? If so, you are saying Jews are scum and insane. That is the only logical conclusion:

            1) If believing life begins at first breath makes you scum and insane,
            2) and Jews believe life begins at first breath,
            3) Jews must be scum and Insane.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            You are attempting to read far too much into my comment. This man is scum because of the horrible things he’s done. I don’t think anyone with any sense of decency would argue that point. That he states something, as some sort of an excuse for what he did, should be enough for people who hold that same point of view to seriously reconsider what it is they believe, and why.

            Your points don’t actually match what I stated at all, because you began with the incorrect assumption that I called him scum because of that specific comment. Whether you actually believed that was my intent, or you simply wanted to argue, is still in question.

          • Jim H

            No, the point I was trying to make is that people are very quick to start emotionally charged rhetoric without really thinking about what they say.

            So many people got so outraged about what he said about life beginning at birth and react with very strong terms, such as insane, which really aren’t appropriate to the situation. It is one thing to think someone’s view is very wrong, but it is another to call it insane. I just wanted to point out that his opinion was not as much of an anomaly as you thought.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            His view isn’t the reason he gained that label, as I stated. That he did gain the label is as stated, a reason to reject his view on that matter. Clearly, the man isn’t an example to follow.

            Whether others agree with him isn’t the point, either. A lot of people think an unborn baby is a person, but claim killing one is still acceptable because the baby is an “invader”. Just because the opinion is shared by many doesn’t make it right.

            As for “emotionally charged”. who cared?? We are talking about lives being taken here. This isn’t an abstract discussion. If someone can discuss that without emotions, they have a problem.

          • Jim H

            You are taking the approach that message is synonymous with the messenger. It isn’t. It is not logical to say that an argument is right/wrong good/bad because of who said it. It should stand on its own merits. Even if we would assume that to be true, the view he expresses existed long before he repeated it.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            To a point, it certainly is logical! When someone with no morals at all claims a stand on a moral issue, you can bet it’s not the right position to defend.

          • Jim H

            What I’m saying is a person that I disagree with on anything else could have one moral issue that I agree with. People will argue the point, but Hitler himself asserted he believed in God. Hitler, for example, was a horrible person who could be characterized as having no morals at all. Does that mean believing in God is not the right position to defend?

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Bad example. Hitler was an occultist, who only claimed he believed in God to get people who did to side with him. In the case of Gosnell, his position on this isn’t correct, either.

          • Jim H

            No, Hitler was a creationist who believed in separate creation of the races, some of which he didn’t consider human.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            No, he most certainly was not.

            Assuming that someone labeling themselves means they are Christian is denying the Bible. Many will claim to be that, who are not, and who He will tell He never knew them.

            Hovind? Seriously? Trumped up tax charges are a sin in your eyes?

            You’ve certainly cleared up one thing. Your motivations are crystal clear.

          • Jim H

            I didn’t claim Hitler was Christian I said he was a creationist. Do you know the difference? Read Mein Kampe and actually check something out for yourself rather than relying on what you’ve been told.

            Hovind was indicted on 58 counts in the District Court in Northern Florida in Pensacola. The trial concluded with Hovind deciding not to present a case in his defense. The jury found him guilty in three hours. Where did you get “trumped up”? Hovind didn’t pay his taxes and he never contended otherwise.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Another abortionist who hijacked Christianity to do his evil deeds is Willie Parker. Here is an article and interview of him that will just make you sick – but you might wish to read it anyway to see the limits that a person will take to worship his sin:

            http://inthesetimes .com/article/18157/dr_willie_parker_wont_be_bullied

            Given the strong OT (equivalent to the Tanach) teaching on the humanity and personhood of the baby in the womb, it is quite a disappointment to STILL see Jews on the wrong side of God, arguably even more so, when it comes to abortion. “Thou shalt not murder” is pretty obvious to those of us not living it up in utter darkness. Here is a short piece on the Church and abortion:

            http://www. thegospelcoalition .org/blogs/justintaylor/2009/01/22/abortion-and-early-church/

            What is fascinating is that you see so many modern-day Jewish people on the side of abortion – around 93%. These are primarily cultural Jews of course, but it is stunning to me that they do not see the obvious parallels between the Holocaust and abortion, especially given that, although Hitler was totally against abortion for the “superior” Aryan race, he was all for it when it came to it with the “sub-human” Jews.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Bookmarked for later; just not up to reading that right now!

            It is surreal how many cultural Jews ignore the Scriptures, and prefer tradition instead. If their other books don’t align with Scripture, how they can accept them is something I cannot understand.

            Sometimes, I think the refusal to accept abortion as a holocaust is more a matter of wanting some bizarre sort of exclusivity; not wanting to admit that they are not the only people to have suffered such a thing.

  • Nidalap

    So…this guy’s in jail…but the Planned Parenthood folks get to run free? ‘Sup with THAT?

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Demon-crat Party. If they could have their way, Gosnell would still be in business. The Abortion President voted 3 times against the Illinois’ equivalent of the Born Alive Act – so he is ideologically in agreement with Gosnell.

      Gosnell did not invent knocking off babies who survived abortion attempts, BTW. Long history of that by the pro-deathers.

    • afchief

      0bama!

    • Tony

      So people on Life Support are not alive. People in a coma.. So unplug
      them then put them in a a Grave too????? I was in a medical Coma and by
      this i didn’t deserve to live and be a father / Husband !!! Breath ? Is a
      Machine doing it constitute Life ??? Abortion is Premeditated Murder.
      The Legal Murder of Million / Billions world wide.
      The Death of America started 2008. Lucky we can fix this Abomination. B.H. obama II is the A. Hitler or Anti-Christ of America.

      • Nidalap

        You make good points! I doubt that Obama is really in charge of whatever elitist group he’s a member of that has control of the country at present. One can look to his czars to see more of the membership.
        The REAL power-brokers are probably behind the scenes and likely prefer it that way for now…

  • MamaBear

    He is taking it out of context. Adam was created from the dust of the ground, not born. He never had a mother’s womb to be in. Psalm 139 clearly shows God knows us, we are alive, while we are still in the womb.

  • Angel Jabbins

    Guess he must have skipped over Psalm 139 and Jeremiah 1:5

    “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book
    before one of them came to be. How precious to me are your thoughts, Oh God!
    How vast is the sum of them!” Psalm 139:13-17

    “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Jeremiah 1:5

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Those are my two favorite pro-life passages too, Angel!

  • Jim H

    Least anyone get upset with me for saying this, I want to preface it with the fact that I completely disagree with the premise of life at birth, although I do personally feel the idea of delayed ensoulment has intellectual merit. However, that said, the idea of life, defined in term of having a soul, not occurring until after birth is not new or unique.

    The Stoics of ancient Greece believed a child received a soul at birth, activated by contact with the air. They did not believe that soul became a rational soul until 14 years of age.

    The idea seems to have adherents in Judaism as well. Rabbis did not apply the word nefesh, meaning soul or person, to a fetus still in the womb. According to page 700 of The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (Oxford University Press) during the latter half of the Second Temple period there was increasing acceptance of the idea of the soul as joining the body at birth and leaving it again at death.

    According to Judaism 101, at jew. faq. org, “In Jewish law, although the human soul exists before birth, human life begins at birth, that is, at the time when the child is more than halfway emerged from the mother’s body. For more details about the consequences of this doctrine, see Abortion.”

    Abortion says:

    Abortion

    Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother’s life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory.

    An unborn child has the status of “potential human life” until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother’s, because you cannot choose between one human life and another.

    I was very surprised by this and did some additional research and found it to be quite true. Here is a rather lengthy example of what I found:

    Resolution on Reproductive Freedom in the United States

    Background

    Over the past four decades the Rabbinical Assembly has
    consistently supported reproductive freedom. This support is firmly based on our members’ understanding of relevant biblical and rabbinic sources as well as teshuvot – modern rabbinic responses.

    In Exodus 21:22-23 we read: “When men fight, and one of them
    pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined… But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life…,” which determines that only the woman is a nefesh, living person, but not the fetus.

    This understanding of the status of a fetus is supported by
    Leviticus 24:17: “If anyone kills any human being, he shall be put to death.” (Leviticus 24:17) In the Mekhilta d’Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai (21:12), the midrash teaches that a fetus is not a living person: “The Torah says [one who strikes] a man (Exodus 21:12), meaning a viable human being, to exclude the fetus.”

    Furthermore, Mishnah Ohalot 7:6 also teaches: “If a woman is
    having difficulty in giving birth [and her life is in danger], one cuts up the fetus within her womb and extracts it limb by limb, because her life takes precedence over that of the fetus. But if the greater part was already born, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person’s life for that of another,” which is understood to mean that a woman whose life is endangered by a pregnancy is permitted to end the pregnancy.

    Likewise, there is the understanding that grave psychological
    distress is a legitimate reason to end a pregnancy. Thus we find in the teshuvah of R. Eliezer Waldenberg, Responsa Tzitz Eliezer, part 13, No.102: “One should permit…abortion as soon as it becomes evident without doubt from the test that, indeed, such a baby (Tay-Sachs baby) shall be born, even until the seventh month of her pregnancy…If, indeed, we may permit an abortion
    according to the Halakhah because of ‘great need’ and because of pain and suffering, it seems that this is the classic case for such permission. And it is irrelevant in what way the pain and suffering is expressed, whether it is physical or psychological. Indeed, psychological suffering is in many ways much greater than the suffering of the flesh.”

    However, recent legislative efforts in the United States on
    both the federal and state levels pose new threats to reproductive freedom.
    These threats include 1) the personhood movement which defines life as beginning at conception, 2) legislative efforts to require ultrasounds prior to abortion, and 3) fetal-homicide laws.

    Specific examples of these include: the “Life at Conception
    Act” (H.R. 374 / S. 91), which was introduced on Jan 20, 2011 and subsequently referred to committee, “a bill to implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and unborn (or preborn) human person.”

    The Oklahoma State Senate passed SB 1433: Personhood Act, in
    February 2012, a bill establishing that “[t]he life of each human being begins at conception” and that “[t]he laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state;” and the Virginia House of Delegates passed HB1 in February 2012, a bill which states “The life of each human being begins at conception,” and is nearly identical to Oklahoma’s SB
    1433.

    In addition the Commonwealth of Virginia adopted HB 462 in March 2012, which not only requires that every pregnant female (except a
    victim of rape or incest) undergo ultrasound imaging prior to an
    abortion but that the medical professional performing the ultrasound must obtain certification from the woman as to whether the woman availed herself of the opportunity to see the ultrasound image or hear the fetal heartbeat. Finally a copy of the ultrasound and the written certification shall be maintained in the woman’s medical records at the facility where the abortion is to be performed;

    Finally Alabama Code § 13A-6-1 (2006) defines “person,” for
    the purpose of criminal homicide or assaults, to include “an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.”

    Resolution

    Whereas the Rabbinical Assembly has passed numerous
    resolutions, most recently in 2005 and 2007, in support of reproductive freedom, providing access to information concerning
    reproductive choice, and limiting the impact of legislation such as the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act”;

    Whereas reproductive freedom is currently under assault via
    state and federal legislation such as the Personhood Act in Oklahoma and Virginia, the Life at Conception Act of the U.S. Congress and the creation of legal obstacles which violate a woman’s privacy through the requirement of ultrasound/trans-vaginal ultrasound prior to abortion;

    Whereas states are basing criminal punishments on the premise
    that a fetus is a full human being;

    Whereas Jewish tradition cherishes the sanctity of life,
    including the potential of life which a pregnant woman carries within her, but does not believe that personhood and human rights begin with conception, rather with birth as indicated by Exodus 21:22-23 and Leviticus 24:17;

    Whereas the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the
    Rabbinical Assembly has affirmed the right of a woman to choose an abortion in cases where “continuation of a pregnancy might cause the mother severe physical or psychological harm, or where the fetus is judged by competent medical opinion as severely defective”; and

    Whereas access to information, education, and services on
    voluntary planning prevents unplanned pregnancies, thereby preventing abortions, but denying a woman and her family full access to the complete spectrum of reproductive healthcare, including contraception, abortion-inducing devices, and abortions, among others, on religious grounds, deprives these women of their
    Constitutional right to religious freedom (e.g. the ability to fulfill the
    commandment to be fruitful and multiply may be jeopardized by the
    criminalization of certain fertility treatments due to personhood laws).

    Therefore, be it resolved that the Rabbinical Assembly urge
    its members to support full access for all women to the entire spectrum of reproductive healthcare;

    Be it further resolved that the Rabbinical Assembly urge its
    members to oppose all efforts by governmental, private entities or individuals to limit such access or to require unnecessary procedures; and
    Be it further resolved that the Rabbinical Assembly urge its
    members to oppose “personhood” legislation on the federal and state levels that would confer legal rights under the law to a fetus or an embryo.

    Be it further resolved that the Rabbinical Assembly urge the
    President, Congress, and State legislatures to support full access for all women to the entire spectrum of reproductive healthcare; to oppose all efforts by governmental, private entities or individuals to limit such access or to require unnecessary procedures; and to oppose “personhood” legislation on the federal and state levels that would confer legal rights under the law to a fetus or an embryo.

    Passed by the Rabbinical Assembly
    Plenum, May, 2012

  • Jim H

    While I was written my previous comment, I came to a new realization. If, in fact, page 700 of The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (Oxford University Press) is correct, during the latter half of the Second Temple period there was increasing acceptance of the idea of the soul as joining the body at birth and leaving it again at death.

    The Second Temple period in Jewish history lasted from between 530 BC and 70 AD, when the Second Temple of Jerusalem existed.

    The latter half of it would have been from 239 BC to 70 AD.

    Jesus was born around 5 BC. That means the idea that the soul joined the body at birth and left it again at death had been prominent for over 230 years before he was born and was the prominent belief for, at least, 40 years after his death.

    Abortions were commonplace in the Roman civilization. Jesus undoubted knew they happened, but never said anything about it, no did any of the apostles.
    “I can’t take you to text that says, ‘Don’t commit abortion,’ ” said Michael J. Gorman, a professor of New Testament and early church history and dean of the Ecumenical Institute of Theology at St. Mary’s Seminary and University, located in Baltimore. “It just doesn’t exist.”

    He was an observant Jew, he was even called a Rabbi. How would you refute the argument that he just shared the prominent understanding/belief of the Jews of his day?

    • http://www.remnantofgod.org/ John1429dotorg

      Rabbi means teacher.

      A soul is a breathing body.

      Abortion violates Commandment #6.

      • Jim H

        In your opinion. Read what the people (Jews) who wrote it had to say about it and argue with them.

        • http://www.remnantofgod.org/ John1429dotorg

          Not my opinion.

          John 3:2, “The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, RABBI, we know that thou art a TEACHER come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.”

          Rabbi means teacher

          Genesis 2:7, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man BECAME a living soul.”

          Man wasn’t given a soul…he became a soul.

          Exodus 20:13, “Thou shalt not kill.”

          Abortion is murder. Murder is sin. Sin is the transgression of the Law of God. Rather blunt.

          No need to argue with “Jews”

          • Jim H

            “Rabbi means teacher.”

            I already knew that. So what does that have to do with anything?

            “A soul is a breathing body.”

            A fetus in the womb doesn’t breathe. A baby’s first breath usually happens at birth when he begins to cry. While in the womb, his lungs are filled with fluid and are not involved in supplying oxygen to his body. Baby gets his oxygen from the mother, via the umbilical cord.
            So, by your definition, the fetus is soulless until it emerges from the womb.

            “Abortion violates Commandment #6.”

            Again, your opinion. Some other opinions will be presented in the response to your next comment.

            ‘No need to argue with “Jews”‘

            No point in arguing with me. I’m just repeating what they believed. You take exception to what the Talmud and other sources say and have the hubris to say you better understand the Hebrew bible than the Hebrews do.

            Its not my job to defend their beliefs.

            According to Judaism 101 and other sources I checked, the Jewish Talmud holds that all life is precious but that a fetus is not a person, in the sense of termination of pregnancy being considered murder. If a woman’s life is endangered by a pregnancy, an abortion is permitted. However, if the “greater part” of the fetus has emerged from the womb, then its life may not be taken even to save the woman’s, “because you cannot choose between one human life and another”.

            The Rabbinical Assembly is an international association of Conservative rabbis, that was founded in 1901. The Assembly has been the creative force shaping the ideology, programs, and practices of the Conservative Jewish movement.

            Here is their rather lengthy statement:

            Resolution on Reproductive Freedom in the United States

            Background

            Over the past four decades the Rabbinical Assembly has
            consistently supported reproductive freedom. This support is firmly based on our members’ understanding of relevant biblical and rabbinic sources as well as teshuvot – modern rabbinic responses.

            In Exodus 21:22-23 we read: “When men fight, and one of them
            pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined… But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life…,” which determines that only the woman is a nefesh, living person, but not the fetus.

            This understanding of the status of a fetus is supported by
            Leviticus 24:17: “If anyone kills any human being, he shall be put to death.” (Leviticus 24:17) In the Mekhilta d’Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai (21:12), the midrash teaches that a fetus is not a living person: “The Torah says [one who strikes] a man (Exodus 21:12), meaning a viable human being, to exclude the fetus.”

            Furthermore, Mishnah Ohalot 7:6 also teaches: “If a woman is
            having difficulty in giving birth [and her life is in danger], one cuts up the fetus within her womb and extracts it limb by limb, because her life takes precedence over that of the fetus. But if the greater part was already born, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person’s life for that of another,” which is understood to mean that a woman whose life is endangered by a pregnancy is permitted to end the pregnancy.

            Likewise, there is the understanding that grave psychological
            distress is a legitimate reason to end a pregnancy. Thus we find in the teshuvah of R. Eliezer Waldenberg, Responsa Tzitz Eliezer, part 13, No.102: “One should permit…abortion as soon as it becomes evident without doubt from the test that, indeed, such a baby (Tay-Sachs baby) shall be born, even until the seventh month of her pregnancy…If, indeed, we may permit an abortion
            according to the Halakhah because of ‘great need’ and because of pain and suffering, it seems that this is the classic case for such permission. And it is irrelevant in what way the pain and suffering is expressed, whether it is physical or psychological. Indeed, psychological suffering is in many ways much greater than the suffering of the flesh.”

            However, recent legislative efforts in the United States on
            both the federal and state levels pose new threats to reproductive freedom.
            These threats include 1) the personhood movement which defines life as beginning at conception, 2) legislative efforts to require ultrasounds prior to abortion, and 3) fetal-homicide laws.

            Specific examples of these include: the “Life at Conception
            Act” (H.R. 374 / S. 91), which was introduced on Jan 20, 2011 and subsequently referred to committee, “a bill to implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and unborn (or preborn) human person.”

            The Oklahoma State Senate passed SB 1433: Personhood Act, in
            February 2012, a bill establishing that “[t]he life of each human being begins at conception” and that “[t]he laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state;” and the Virginia House of Delegates passed HB1 in February

  • Tony

    So people on Life Support are not alive. People in a coma.. So unplug them then put them in a a Grave too????? I was in a medical Coma and by this i didn’t deserve to live and be a father / Husband !!! Breath ? Is a Machine doing it constitute Life ??? Abortion is Premeditated Murder. The Legal Murder of Million / Billions world wide.

  • bowie1

    What makes Gosnell think the baby in the womb doesn’t breathe?

    • Jim H

      I would assume it was because he understand that the baby lives in a bag of amniotic fluid, making its lungs useless, and gets it’s oxygen from its mother through the umbilical cord.