INTRODUCTION OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE ACT (Duncan Hunter 2007)

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, one of the most fascinating and popular shows on television today, In the Womb on the National Geographic Channel, provides viewers with amazingly detailed footage of unborn children growing and interacting in utero, Watching these babies suck their thumbs, smile and cry has led many to question why a nation, that can spend millions of dollars searching for life on other planets, is not able to discern life in the beating heart of an unborn child. For many years now, I have introduced an important piece of legislation that fulfills what I believe to be one of our most important obligations as elected leaders of this great Nation; protecting our unborn children from harm. I am proud to once again be introducing the Right to Life Act and I am optimistic of its future.

Unfortunately, over 1.3 million abortions are performed in the United States each year and over 38 million have been performed since abortion was legalized in 1973. Mr. Speaker, this is a national tragedy. It is the duty of all Americans to protect our children--born and unborn. This bill, the Right to Life Act, would provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception.

In 1973, the United States Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, refused to determine when human life begins and therefore found nothing to indicate that the unborn are persons protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. In the decision, however, the Court did concede that, ``If the suggestion of personhood is established, the appellants'' case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.''

Considering Congress has the constitutional authority to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment, coupled by the fact that the Court admitted that if personhood were to be established, the unborn would be protected, it can be concluded that we have the authority to determine when life begins.

The Right to Life Act does what the Supreme Court refused to do in Roe v. Wade and recognizes the personhood of the unborn for the purpose of enforcing 4 important provisions in the Constitution: (1) Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibiting States from depriving any person of life; (2) Sec. 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment providing Congress the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provision of this amendment; (3) the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which concurrently prohibits the Federal Government from depriving any person of life; and (4) Article I, Section 8, giving Congress the power to make laws necessary and proper to enforce all powers in the Constitution.

This legislation will protect millions of future children by prohibiting any State or Federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn, thereby effectively overturning Roe v. Wade. I firmly believe that life begins at conception and that the preborn child deserves all the rights and protections afforded an American citizen. This measure will recognize the unborn child as a human being and protect the fetus from harm. The Right to Life Act will finally put our unborn children on the same legal footing as all other persons and I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this important effort.

Wow man, do you even know what a ‘right’ is? ‘Cause if you did you would know that no government can give away rights, they aren’t theirs to grant. You’re quoting the Declaration but you’re not understanding it dude. They say “We HOLD these truths…”, that means they’re recognizing an already established fact. The only entity mentioned that gives out rights is “our Creator”, surely Hunter doesn’t put himself in that category.

Your only real justification for your argument is that it’s hard to explain in the ‘real world.’ Well boo-freakin-hoo, deal with it. If dumbing down an argument is the only way you think you can win, be my guest but don’t masquerade around as if you can contribute to a serious discussion. Here, this is about simple as you can get it: the SOLE role of government is to protect our rights, not make up new ones and sure as hell not to trounce on the ones we already have. States DO NOT have rights, only people. The state of Israel does not have a right to exist, the Israeli people have the right to exist and the right to defend that right.

Look, you write much better then I do and you know the arguments, you pretty much wrote then same thing I just did, just put a unintellectual populist twist on the end of it.

Well, you're actually wrong there. But, I'll get to that in a minute.

For one thing, I know what a particular "right" is that the Declaration of Independence defined as being "unalienable" and from our Creator, hence not something given or taken away by the government. And that was precisely the reason for quoting the Declaration of Independence, in that particular language and putting it right in my post. It would be obvious that this is the intent of putting it in my post.

Secondly (what I said I would get right to)..., where you're wrong is that all "rights" are not granted by the Creator. Some rights are granted by the government. Well..., you might not believe me. Well, let's take one of the "Bill of Rights" (funny name, huh? and not in the Declaration of Independence, either). Let's go to the Second Amendment. That is a right, which is not "unalienable". In other words, the government did grant that, and the government can take that right away.

You ask, "How can that happen, since it's in the Bill of Rights?" Well, it's technically possible by putting forth a Constitutional Amendment (we've got a lot of those, so it's very possible), and getting it passed. Thus, if one passed, changing the Second Amendment (the gun part), then that right would be gone by "government fiat" just as easily as it's there now. And there would be no argument that this was something that was granted from our Creator God. Oh..., someone might try that angle, but it wouldn't fly, basically because hardly anyone believes in the Creator God (in a "real sense"), much less His involvement in real life, much less His involvement in politics.

So, not all "rights" are untouchable, you would would indicate.

Your only real justification for your argument is that it’s hard to explain in the ‘real world.’ Well boo-freakin-hoo, deal with it. If dumbing down an argument is the only way you think you can win, be my guest but don’t masquerade around as if you can contribute to a serious discussion. Here, this is about simple as you can get it: the SOLE role of government is to protect our rights, not make up new ones and sure as hell not to trounce on the ones we already have. States DO NOT have rights, only people. The state of Israel does not have a right to exist, the Israeli people have the right to exist and the right to defend that right.

Well, you've got that one backwards. The argument is first of all, that it's precisely easy to explain -- as it stands right now -- on the basis of the Declaration of Independence and that those particular rights as defined, are those which are not the government's to grant or take away. Thus, there's nothing hard to understand about that.

But, to turn that current understanding into some kind of convoluted argument, into one in which people say, "huh?!" -- that is the one that is hard to understand. Very simply, I'm saying it's easy to understand as it is right now, and it's already based upon those very unalienable rights (as defined), so why turn it into something convoluted and hard to understand.

Your argument seems to say that it's preferable to turn it from the current easy method of understanding to a convoluted way of understanding it -- and that it's just too bad if people have to think harder to understand your convoluted argument (especially when they had no problem understanding it in the first place).

You seem like you're standing on your head when you're talking..., otherwise, I don't know why someone would want to appeal to something convoluted.

Oh, and you just mentioned one thing that is absolutely and entirely wrong -- absolutely and totally. You just said that "the state of Israel does not have a right to exist" -- but here is where you're wrong, because God granted it -- in a national sense. God stated it "nationally" for Israel that it had a right to exist because He decreed it and He would maintain it beyond even maintaining the stars in the sky and the sun and the moon, itself. If there was ever a nation that was decreed to exist, it's Israel. And remember, a "nation" has to exist, if there is always to be a "throne" to rule over that particular people. God decreed that the Throne of David was to be forever, never to be abandoned and perpetually before Him. That's "national Israel" as opposed to some "Jews" individually. And when Jesus Christ returns to the earth, that "Throne of David", which is the rulership over the nation of Israel (i.e., "national Israel") will be in place at that time. And that's a time when there will be the other nations in the world, too -- probably the United States, England, Egypt, Jordan, etc...

So, the nation of Israel is the only nation in the entire world that has the absolute guarantee of existence. And the funny thing, is that same "Creator God" who guarantees "national Israel's existence" -- is that same God who has granted us certain "unalienable rights". So, both "guarantees" go together -- as coming from that very same God.

Regards,
Star Traveler

Hmmm, except for the last part, very good reply. You cleared a lot of things up that you didn’t mention in your other post. I can type all day on the issue and I assume you can to but there’s no point in being too specific if no one calls us on it.

Let me start by telling you that our differences are epistemological in nature. I was hoping that wouldn’t be an issue but with me it frequently is. I’m as hardcore of an atheist as they come; if you know what objectivism is that would explain it but if you don’t lets just say I hold the rights of the individual in the highest esteem and that is the source of my morality.

Alright, so you say some rights are granted by government and you offer the 2nd amendment as an example. The latter part of the amendment states:

“the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

So how can a government possibly infringe on a right the people already have? Nowhere in the Constitution are rights granted, the Founders recognized that they did not have the power or authority to do such a thing, only to protect the right everyone was born with. However if someone violated the rights of others, the state has the responsibility to suppress their rights in return. The Founders recognized this; you used the 2nd amendment as an example so let me use the 9th:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

They admit they’re not listing everything, they can’t and they shouldn’t. In fact several delegates were against the Bill of Rights until this was included. I would have been too.

As for amending the Constitution to add ‘rights’, you can call a duck a swan but it’s still going to be a duck. You have to realize that the Constitution should be at the end of a discussion on rights, not the beginning. It was the document written up after years of debate, it most certainly is not a ‘source’ of rights.

The reason I’m pushing so hard on the issue of what is a right really is against the reasons you like to make popular. The easy explanation is so wrong that I believe it will hurt us more in the long run. If people start to thinking that their rights come from an amendable piece of paper…for me at least all hope is lost. If eventually liberals make it so that a ‘right’ to healthcare makes it’s way in the Constitution, people really will believe it’s a right. So I can’t stress enough how dangerous that line of thinking is, both to conservative types like yourself and libertarian types like me.

Finally on Israel, looks like we both support it but for entirely different reasons. Even among conservatives your argument is pretty rare. But first…as a nation, I like Israel as much as say, France which means not very much. They’re a bunch of socialists who pay as much attention to property rights as a bum does to his smell. They also practice slavery by forcing people into servitude against their will. However they are under attack by barbarians for possessing land that is rightfully theirs. They are also the first line of defense Western Civilization has against the Islamist threat. I don’t think we should be giving them aid however, if they can afford a socialist state then they can afford to put more money in their military. But on my original point, again states do not have rights. What makes something a right is its relationship to an individual; without a stem, there will be no flower and without the individual, there is no right. Now people can act in concert for their own benefit, that’s why they form states in the first place. But states do not exist independent of the people.

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.