Posted on 09/29/2007 9:06:55 AM PDT by wagglebee
Pro-life organizations are trying to build support for the legal definition that an unborn child is a person to exploit a weakness that was cited by author Harry Blackmun when he wrote the creative Roe V. Wade abortion precedent in 1973.
But their work has generated a huge argument within the pro-life movement: whether it's better to chip away at the opportunities abortionists have to conduct their business or a challenge should be mounted to confront Roe's very premise that the unborn are only tissue.
WND reported earlier when several pro-life organizations launched an advertising campaign that was critical of other pro-lifers for their praise for the U.S. Supreme Court's partial birth abortion decision, which said some procedures could be restricted. Groups including Focus on the Family noted it was the first court opinion in years that actually supported abortion restrictions and said it was a moral victory, while others including the America Life League countered that the court ruling actually would not prohibit a single abortion, just a way of doing them. That argument has been raised to a new level now, with opinions from some of the top legal experts in the pro-life camp squaring off in a sort of debate at the Personhood.net website.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
"After these 30-plus years, we still have Roe and abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy. The proposed constitutional amendment seeks to change that. Consequently, this proposal is not for the faint of heart. It is for those who are committed to changing the status quo and who have the will to see it through," he said.
He's right, it's time to end infanticide once and for all.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Calling people “people”. Very crafty.
The moment when personhood begins is the only issue that matters. And it’s the only issue about which there is actually any substantial disagreement. Although the Left prefers to frame the issue as the “right to choose,” that’s an intellectual dishonesty of immense proportions, since no one is challenging the right of mothers to excise anything from their bodies that is merely “tissue.”
I believe that Rep. Duncan Hunter has repeatedly introduced a bill claiming personhood at conception over many years, so this is high priority for a Hunter administration.
Yes!
Personhood is the key.
That is why Blackmun, in Roe, said the court would ignore the “well-known facts of fetal development” because otherwise,
UNBORN BABIES WOULD BE ENTITLED TO PERSONHOOD
under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Duncan Hunter has introduced legislation to recognize the personhood of unborn children.
Does anyone know what the other presidential candidates have done about it?
The problem is, pro-abortionists deep down know that the unborn baby is a person also. I recall during the ‘80s some were calling for the right to claim an aborted baby as a dependent for tax purposes. There are others who advocate that babies be eligible for killing up to a month AFTER being born.
The idea was broached concerning a hypothetical technical solution to the ‘inconvenience’ of pregnancy by having the baby removed much earlier than is currently possible and either implanted in another woman or developed in an artificial womb. The pro-abortionists scorned this idea also. They did not want the mother burdened with the knowledge that her baby was ALIVE somewhere; she wanted to be comforted in the knowledge that her baby was DEFINITELY DEAD.
Bear in mind, this is the mentality we are dealing with. Oh well, we are simply making way for those [who do not embrace our culture and freedoms] who will replace our aborted children with theirs.
So in the long-run, the abortionists will effectively utilize Natural Selection and ensure their Utopia’s demise anyway.
Those who don’t agree should continue having babies and work toward convincing others who think that our way of life is worth preserving to do the same.
I argued with a liberal lady who said that a woman should be able to do anything she wants, with her body. I said, “Should a lady be able to use cocaine or be a hooker?” She said, “No.” I said, “You just contradicted yourself. Now, you say that a lady shouldn’t be able to do whatever she wants with her body. You think a lady shouldn’t be able to take drugs or have sex for money, but she can murder her baby.” She said, “A fetus isn’t a baby. It’s just a bunch of cells.” We were about three feet from her two year-old daughter, and I didn’t know what to say, since I couldn’t prove, to her, that a fetus is a baby.
“Personhood’ silver bullet to kill Roe v. Wade?”
Why are people always trying to find the “quick fix?” I suspect laziness. Everyone knows that if Roe is overturned the issue reverts to the states. I think that there is a sizeable chunk of the po-life movement that just doesn’t have it in them to continue the fight in 50 little skirmishes around the nation.
I do. I will.
Does this mean that you would deny D&C treatment for someone who was raped? I am very much a pro-life, anti-abortion person, but I have a more philosophical view of conception. I do not accept that rape is “conception”. That may not jibe with a “personhood” concept or be acceptable to many other religious people who would push for absolutes. Sorry if that’s too mystical for others, that’s how I see it.
The left is aware of personhood. They just don’t care. Remember how they lobbied to have Terri Schiavo killed?
***It’s just a bunch of cells.” We were about three feet from her two year-old daughter,***
That two year-old will grow up and euthanize mummie as soon as mummie outlives her usefulness.
Not necessarily, if the Supreme Court declares an unborn baby a "person," the baby automatically enjoys due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
This may sound quite harsh, but the lethal injection issue before SCOTUS, I think, could be applied to the unborn babies.
The left argues that lethal injection is “cruel and unusual” punishment. However, if the liberal whiners preferred method of execution were adopted - a surgical scissors jammed into the base of the skull and suck out the brains - the problem would be solved. The libs wouldn’t dare argue that their preferred method of execution is cruel and unusual.
We named our daughter many months before she was born.
Politicians are responsible for their decisions in a way that judges never are. They pay a price for stupidity as judges never do.
If the issue returns to the states, we’ve basically won.
“If the issue returns to the states, we’ve basically won.”
That’s how I see it. When they have to debate the issue in public, and the public has a chance to see what abortion is, that it IS killing.....no way abortion remains legal in most places. I would say all places but we still have outposts like Vermont, New York, Massachusetts and California.....those would be tough rows to hoe.
Does this mean that you would deny D&C treatment for someone who was raped?<
It does, indeed. Situational ethics does not apply in my book in any way, shape or form.
In the future, people will look back at out time, and say, “They actually killed their babies! Can you believe it?”
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.