The SCARE TACTICS used by Baby Molesters

[Your Uncle Sam]

Scare Tactic Alert

Sign the petition

for the

California Human Rights Amendment

DEADLINE: 21 APRIL, 2010

CLICK HERE:

http://www.californiahumanrightsamendment.com/

Many of you will be confronted with misleading information and outright lies put out by the abortion industry and cheerfully carried by the main stream media. This page uncovers the most frequent scare tactics and gives truthful answers.

Scare Tactic	Is it True?
It Will Ban Contraception	Lie
It Will Ban In Vitro Fertilization	Lie
It Will Threaten Doctors who Perform Legitimate Surgeries	Lie
It Will Threaten Women Who Miscarry With Criminal Prosecution	Lie
It Will Put the Life of the Child Ahead of The Life of the Mother	Lie

It won’t ban contraception.

Contraception comes from the words "contra" and "conception". Properly understood it means something that prevents conception. In 1965 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a medical bulletin which "officially" changed the definition of conception from the union of a sperm and an egg to implantation of the young human being in the wall of the uterus. The reason they did this was to make chemical abortifacients seem more palatable to the American people who would now be tricked into believing that the human being did not begin until implantation. While the AMA and pro-abortion bioethicists have tried to obfuscate the meaning of conception, embryology is very clear about the beginning of life: the beginning of life (under normal sexual reproduction) takes place when the sperm touches the ovum. Barrier methods of contraception that prevent the union of the sperm and the egg will not be outlawed, since neither a sperm nor an egg by itself is a human being.

It won’t ban or penalize in vitro fertilization.

However, it will reform the current in vitro practices. The process of in vitro fertilization simply means that the egg and the sperm are joined outside of the body of the woman. In modern practice, fertility clinics will often create multiple human beings and then select the ones that they consider to be the best. The others are then discarded like medical waste. In Britain alone, 1.2 million human beings were created in in vitro fertility clinics and then discarded. In the U.S. 95% of the human beings created for in vitro fertilization were destroyed. The Colorado Personhood Amendment would not prohibit in vitro fertilization, instead it would force medical scientists to come up with ethical alternatives to the mass production and mass extermination of human beings at the hands of fertility clinics.

It won’t threaten the death penalty on doctors who do legitimate invasive surgery that could unintentionally harm a child in the womb.

In Colorado, the death penalty is only available for first degree murder with aggravating factors. First degree murder requires deliberation and intent. There are no legitimate medical procedures that are intended to kill the child in the womb, and in those extremely rare situations where a woman needs treatment that might unintentionally result in the death of the child, the doctor would not have acted with intent to kill or even harm the child, but with intent to cure the mother. Before Colorado passed it’s abortion law legalizing abortion in 1967 there were no prosecutions of doctors for legitimate medical treatment. There will be no threat whatsoever to doctors practicing legitimate medicine when the Colorado Personhood Amendment passes. This is a scare tactic.

It won’t open the door to criminal investigations of women who miscarry.

Again, miscarriages are completely unintentional. For a woman to be charged for a miscarriage she would have to have acted with criminal culpability which includes the performance of an act and a matching criminal intent. These standards would be the same as would be applied to any mother who harms her children, born or preborn. This is a scare tactic.

It won’t ban surgeries for women who have tubal pregnancies, also known as ectopic pregnancies.

The crucial issue in criminal law is always intent. Law School 101 teaches you that the basic elements of any crime are a guilty mind (mens rea) and a guilty act (actus reus). A doctor who performs a procedure to cut out a damaged section of a fallopian tube where a human embryo is lodged is not intending to kill the human embryo, instead she is attempting to cure a physical ailment, and unintentionally causing the death of a human embryo. It should be noted that the tubal pregnancy may be the result of an embryo that never developed and is effectively dead, or it may be the result of a scarred fallopian tube. In the case where the fallopian tube is damaged, it may be a matter of years before medical science evolves to the point where doctors are able to rescue the child and re-implant him into the uterus.

It will make sure that children in the womb are treated exactly the same as children outside the womb.

It will mandate that those courts that have the power of judicial review strike down those laws that are incompatible with the state’s highest authority, namely the state’s constitution. Alternatively, the laws that contradict the 2010 Personhood Constitutional Amendment will become moot.

It will ban abortion.

Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. Science can now pinpoint the exact beginning of a human being’s life, therefore, any actions taken with criminal intent will be punished under the existing criminal code, irrespective of whether the child is in or out of the womb.

It will ban chemical abortifacients.

The abortion industry, with the willing complicity of the main stream media, has redefined the term contraceptive to include poisons and devices that cause the early human being to die. These poisons are called abortifacients because they may cause early abortions. When the abortion industry says that the 2010 Personhood Amendment would outlaw contraceptives, they are either lying now, or they were lying then, for they had always told women that chemical contraceptives did not kill a living embryo. A woman should know whether a chemical would kill her child. The 2010 Personhood Amendment will end the lies.

It will ban human embryonic stem cell research.

Human embryonic stem cell research is nothing more than human harvesting. There are other more successful treatment options involving the use of umbilical and adult stem cells that don’t require the creation and destruction of human beings for medical experimentation.

Please PROTECT INFANT Human Beings

Thank you,

REAL CONSERVATIVES

MEMBER

Maureen Gerrish

p.s.

..."Let them BE!"

Your Uncle Sam