Posted on 08/04/2026 2:39:19 PM PDT by fwdude
I want to begin with a proposal for a particular pro-life amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Having done so in this introduction, I will then outline in summary form the advantages of this approach. I will then touch on a key distinction to help us understand the fact that there is more than one way to terminate a pregnancy. And in the final section, I will try to answer possible objections to this approach, or at least suggest the direction of the answer.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
A new idea: terminating a pregnancy is not necessarily abortion. Or, every abortion terminates a pregnancy, but not every termination of a pregnancy is an abortion.
About 1 min in and nope. Not a good argument at all. Many people are not viable after a serious accident yet we do everything in our power to keep them alive. Age should not matter.
It’s called incrementalism for a reason. You don’t eat the entire elephant in one gulp.
Birth certificates, death certificates are issued by the states. It is a state issue. Any move to centralize in big government will be regretted.
I was talking to my wife about the topic of Constitutional amendments in general.
The last one to jump all the hurdles and take effect was this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
It took effect in 1992.
We have no more amendments in the last thirty four years.
This salary amendment was boring and uncontroversial.
At this point a new constitutional amendment is deep into Unicorn territory—even if it is make it official that one plus one equals two.
Bottom line—the merit of the proposal is irrelevant. It is like debating whether feeding Unicorns wheat is better than feeding them corn.
Certain issues can not be subject to incrementalism. The Inalienable Right to Life as enshrined in our founding document is one of them. It is so much part of the founding of our nation that everyone understood it never needed to be mentioned in the Constitution. Neither the Federalists nor the Anti-Federalists even addressed it as it was so basic an understanding. This foundational understanding of The Law of God and the Natural Law should not be trivialized.
Then we get nothing.
I understand your position on this, but we have to work with the hand we've been dealt. Roe was in place nearly all my life, and its expectations are ensconced in the national psyche. Even before Roe, some states already had allowed abortion to some degree, with some narrow stipulations. Going from the patchwork of legality between states to a full prohibition is a tall order, and might take several steps over decades before we can get there.
Again, the all or nothing approach will most likely get us nothing.
Incremental approach will get you Hell. I don't want to go there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.