"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.
“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.
The left is aware of personhood. They just don’t care. Remember how they lobbied to have Terri Schiavo killed?
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.
In the future, people will look back at out time, and say, “They actually killed their babies! Can you believe it?”
Why doesn't this fit the definition?
That's why, for example, reporting of child sexual abuse is mandatory - except if the child is having an abortion. That's why a child needs parental consent for a tylenol but not for an abortion. That's why you are free to speak in public, except if you are speaking near an abortuary. That's why killing a human baby in utero is a felony - unless the mother wants it dead.
This peculiar institution will fall - must fall - in its time - but it won't be done in by clever wordsmithing.
So according to the abortionists we are all just walking, breathing tissue. Because if the child in the womb from conception is just tissue then we all are. Maybe simplist, but it just goes to reason and logic. Logic and reason the evil can not and refuses to follow.
"More than a decade ago, a Supreme Court decision literally wiped off the books of fifty states statutes protecting the rights of unborn children. Abortion on demand now takes the lives of up to one and a half million unborn children a year. Human life legislation ending this tragedy will someday pass the Congress, and you and I must never rest until it does. Unless and until it can be proven that the unborn child is not a living entity, then its right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be protected.
You may remember that when abortion on demand began, many, and indeed, I'm sure many of you, warned that the practice would lead to a decline in respect for human life, that the philosophical premises used to justify abortion on demand would ultimately be used to justify other attacks on the sacredness of human life -- infanticide or mercy killing. Tragically enough, those warnings proved all too true.
bmflr