That is the way to do it: rather than trying to outlaw abortion, simply define human life and personhood as beginning at fertilization and let the existing laws do the work.
To: little jeremiah; wagglebee
2 posted on
11/01/2011 4:40:38 AM PDT by
markomalley
(Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good-Pope Leo XIII)
To: markomalley
The anti-Prop 26 support in Mississippi is hiding behind groups like "Parents against 26", which is sorta like a "Jews for Hitler" group.
No matter what anybody says- most abortions in this country are done for conveeeenience, when there are couples out there desperate to adopt a child.
3 posted on
11/01/2011 4:51:23 AM PDT by
MuttTheHoople
(Democrats- Forgetting 9/11 since 9/12/01)
To: markomalley
Another thing- between 1865 and 1971, there were approximately 2500 blacks lynched in the South by Democrats. Between 1973 and today, approximately 12.5 million blacks were lynched by abortionists.
4 posted on
11/01/2011 4:52:42 AM PDT by
MuttTheHoople
(Democrats- Forgetting 9/11 since 9/12/01)
To: markomalley
It will be defined as homicide. That’s good. Homicide isn’t always murder as in the case of capital punishment or a justifiable accident.
That would at least leave it up to the defendant to demonstrate a murder did not take place.
On the other hand, there are few abortions that are not intentional. The exceptions I can think of would involve cancers or some other illness in which the mother risks that both mother and child will survive despite a round of treatment that would pose risk to both.
5 posted on
11/01/2011 4:59:33 AM PDT by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
To: markomalley
Kate Michelman and Frances Kissling, two leaders of the pro-choice movement, acknowledge the gains of their pro-life rivals and cite improved technology as enabling them to take the moral high ground. Technology, yes. That and not supporting all instances of the most barbaric practices.
6 posted on
11/01/2011 5:02:58 AM PDT by
relictele
To: markomalley
Further, it becomes a matter for the states
Want to kill your baby...... go to California
7 posted on
11/01/2011 5:06:13 AM PDT by
bert
(K.E. N.P. +12 ..... Crucifixion is coming)
To: markomalley
I agree with you and hope this passes. I’ve said for years that we should work to define ‘human being’ as including the human fetus (what other sort of being would it be?), and just apply existing laws/rights. To say we need to pass laws banning abortion is to tacitly agree with the pro-abortion position that fetal humans are not really human beings with the same rights and legal protections that rest of us have.
8 posted on
11/01/2011 5:57:58 AM PDT by
Liberty1970
(Daddy to Lily Ann, born 3:50 AM, 10/15/11, 9 lb/4 oz. of joy!)
To: markomalley
And will the governor have the guts to enforce this?
The people whose authority was directly challenged by Roe v. Wade were the governors—and not a single one did the right thing, which was Nullification.
9 posted on
11/01/2011 6:32:19 AM PDT by
Arthur McGowan
(In Edward Kennedy's America, federal funding of brothels is a right, not a privilege.)
To: markomalley
11 posted on
11/01/2011 9:37:54 PM PDT by
little jeremiah
(We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson