Think of this as the U.S.' war in the Pacific. The U.S. didn't try to win the war in one battle, they went island by island. I think cp's article makes a similar point. There is much more likely to be an Ammendment if Roe was overturned and there were states that were pro-life.
Think of this as the U.S.’ war in the Pacific. The U.S. didn’t try to win the war in one battle, they went island by island.
***I have used the analogy of the Civil War in the past as a segway into a proposal to extend rights of protection to as many unborn babies as society can muster.
I think that would be wonderful to pass the amendment. However, I don’t see that we would have enough support to get the human life amendment passed, so that’s why I even bother with the 3 tiered compromise in the first place. The analogy I’ve used before is that it’s as if we were in the civil war and we didn’t have the resources to end it triumphantly, both sides were stuck. If one side is making tons of progress, they won’t be negotiating for an end to hostilities.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917001/posts?page=53#53
To: CheyennePress
but at that point, if you declare a fetus a living human, a fetus is entitled to the protections granted under the US Constitution.
***Isn’t there a biblical approach to a possible compromise? For instance, my oblique understanding of the old testament law is that if a pregnant woman gets injured, it’s an eye for an eye to repay her. But if her unborn baby gets killed or injured, the payment is less.
Perhaps it is time to start considering extending the rights of protection to unborn babies who are at least viable, and a plan to extend societal resources to those unborn who are not yet viable.
I believe a fetus is a human being who deserves protection under the law from being killed. That unborn human deserves protection extended by the state.
Perhaps it is time to consider a 3 tiered system of protection.
Tier 1: Living, viable, late term baby which will not be aborted unless the life of the mother is at stake.
Tier 2: Living, not-yet-viable pre-born human who should have the right to protection and life and a safe womb to which it can attain viability. Cannot be aborted unless there is an open rape case associated with the pregnancy or the life of the mother is at stake.
Tier 3: Living, early stage, not yet viable pre-born human for whom we do not extend the rights of life in this society because of a historical snag where we once considered such tissue not to be a baby. We as a society thought it was best to consider it a private decision. I personally do not believe in Tier3 abortions, but I can understand that there are many who think it is a “right to choose” at this stage. It may be time to consider a program where the woman declares her pregnancy and intent to abort. Our societal function at this point would be to provide a family that is willing to adopt this baby and to put up this woman for 6-8 months in a safe environment so the baby can grow and maybe the woman can learn some life skills. If our society cannot muster the forces necessary to save this baby, the woman has the sickening “right” to abort this pregnancy. Time for us to put up or shut up.
With a 3-tiered plan in place, women would stop using abortion as a means of birth control. Millions of lives would be saved. We would extend the right to life to every human that we have resources to save. Unfortunately, if we cannot put up the resources to save the Tier3 babies, we still would have this horrible practice staining our nation’s soul.
88 posted on 10/14/2007 10:36:52 PM PDT by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq— via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.))
Think of this as the U.S.’ war in the Pacific. The U.S. didn’t try to win the war in one battle, they went island by island.
***I have used the analogy of the Civil War in the past as a segway into a proposal to extend rights of protection to as many unborn babies as society can muster.
I think that would be wonderful to pass the amendment. However, I don’t see that we would have enough support to get the human life amendment passed, so that’s why I even bother with the 3 tiered compromise in the first place. The analogy I’ve used before is that it’s as if we were in the civil war and we didn’t have the resources to end it triumphantly, both sides were stuck. If one side is making tons of progress, they won’t be negotiating for an end to hostilities.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917001/posts?page=53#53
To: CheyennePress
but at that point, if you declare a fetus a living human, a fetus is entitled to the protections granted under the US Constitution.
***Isn’t there a biblical approach to a possible compromise? For instance, my oblique understanding of the old testament law is that if a pregnant woman gets injured, it’s an eye for an eye to repay her. But if her unborn baby gets killed or injured, the payment is less.
Perhaps it is time to start considering extending the rights of protection to unborn babies who are at least viable, and a plan to extend societal resources to those unborn who are not yet viable.
I believe a fetus is a human being who deserves protection under the law from being killed. That unborn human deserves protection extended by the state.
Perhaps it is time to consider a 3 tiered system of protection.
Tier 1: Living, viable, late term baby which will not be aborted unless the life of the mother is at stake.
Tier 2: Living, not-yet-viable pre-born human who should have the right to protection and life and a safe womb to which it can attain viability. Cannot be aborted unless there is an open rape case associated with the pregnancy or the life of the mother is at stake.
Tier 3: Living, early stage, not yet viable pre-born human for whom we do not extend the rights of life in this society because of a historical snag where we once considered such tissue not to be a baby. We as a society thought it was best to consider it a private decision. I personally do not believe in Tier3 abortions, but I can understand that there are many who think it is a “right to choose” at this stage. It may be time to consider a program where the woman declares her pregnancy and intent to abort. Our societal function at this point would be to provide a family that is willing to adopt this baby and to put up this woman for 6-8 months in a safe environment so the baby can grow and maybe the woman can learn some life skills. If our society cannot muster the forces necessary to save this baby, the woman has the sickening “right” to abort this pregnancy. Time for us to put up or shut up.
With a 3-tiered plan in place, women would stop using abortion as a means of birth control. Millions of lives would be saved. We would extend the right to life to every human that we have resources to save. Unfortunately, if we cannot put up the resources to save the Tier3 babies, we still would have this horrible practice staining our nation’s soul.
88 posted on 10/14/2007 10:36:52 PM PDT by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq— via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.))
I totally agree, and my sense in this case is "shame on him". :) I don't see Thompson lifting a finger beyond getting Roe overturned. But, is that a deal breaker? For me it's not because if Roe was actually overturned I would be doing so many hand springs and cartwheels that I wouldn't care who was President! :) At that time, an Amendment would at least be on the table, it isn't now. Given this round's viable crop, I don't see how we're going to do better than this.
However, I don't want to give the impression that I am an official FredHead. :) I will be voting on Super Tuesday on 2/5, and right now my leanings are toward Huckabee, if there is any chance that it might mean something since I am in the border state of MO.
Think of this as the U.S.' war in the Pacific. The U.S. didn't try to win the war in one battle, they went island by island. I think cp's article makes a similar point. There is much more likely to be an Amendment if Roe was overturned and there were states that were pro-life.
No doubt about it, I agree in full. THEN an effective movement can start for an Amendment.