Posted on 02/16/2012 7:32:29 AM PST by Badabing Badablonde
The first bill of the session passed by the Oklahoma Senate was an anti-abortion statement that life begins at the moment of conception, approved by senators Wednesday after two hours of debate.
The practical effect of the bill is open to question. Its author, Sen. Brian Crain, R-Tulsa, said it's merely a statement that Oklahoma is “pro-life.” He labeled as fear mongering contentions by opponents that it could lead to restrictions on abortions, birth control, in vitro fertilization and stem cell research.
The Personhood Act, Senate Bill 1433, received international attention in the wake of a proposed amendment from Sen. Constance Johnson, D-Holdenville. The amendment said it was an act against unborn children for men to waste sperm.
“A lot of people thought that I was being facetious with my amendment in committee, and it was humorous and it has gotten international response,” Johnson said to her fellow senators.
“But I was serious as a heart attack. It wasn't until I used the biological and scientific references to those functions that somebody heard it. Maybe nobody in this chamber gets it but somebody heard that all we're asking for is for this conversation to include both individuals that are necessary to bring life about.”
Johnson, whose amendment was tabled, said she is sick of legislation that pries into the private lives of women with no mention of the men who are co-actors in the process of conception.
The bill passed 34-8 with several Democrats voting in favor.
Death is not part of the equation.
Notice the absurd objection about “wasting sperm”.
Half the chromosomes, either in the egg or sperm, do not a human make.
They know it’s absurd, but they can’t (ever) argue based on the actual merits and facts of the issue, so they have to make “arguments” like this. I surprised he didn’t call everyone idiots, flip them off and moon everyone and declare that he won the argument.
Meanwhile, the Maryland Assembly is about to pass homo promo (same sex marriage act).
*sigh*.
It befuddles me why there is any doubt.
No worries. Holder’s DOJ will put an end to this nonsense.
What’s sad is that the Roe v Wade decision was that it doesn’t even matter when human life begins - because “legal” personhood is different than biological personhood.
As a result of Roe v Wade the door is open for “legal personhood” to be ruled to begin at any point on the continuum of biological life - or never. And there are “ethicists” who argue for “legal personhood” beginning at age 2, age 18, and/or never (for people deemed “unfit”, ala Hitler’s eugenics program, which was also supported by his colleague and founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger).
A long but fascinating read about that subject: http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/stith/locationandlife.pdf
What’s really ironic about that gal’s amendment talking about the “waste of sperm” being an act against unborn children: Roe v Wade refused to call a fetus a human life; instead the term was “potential life”, and the court asserted that the government has a compelling interest in regulating “potential life”. So what this gal put in the amendment is actually consistent with what Roe v Wade says the government role is. According to Roe v Wade the fetus is legally no different than sperm, ova, the act of intercourse, human anatomy, etc: they are all simply “potential life”. And the Roe court asserted that it is the government’s interest to regulate “potential life”.
So guys, be prepared to have to register your individual sperm and account for each drop of seminal fluid. Or be prepared to have sterilants put into the drinking water in order to “save the earth”, as several of Obama’s unaccountable “czars” have said would be justified - because the government has a compelling interest in what life is allowed to exist and what must be stopped.
That is precisely the radical view that Roe v Wade supports. Most people don’t know any of this.
I should clarify one thing. The Roe v Wade decision was that the word “person” in the 14th Amendment refers to “legal person”. So the clarified version of the 14th amendment would read thusly:
“All LEGAL persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any LEGAL person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any LEGAL person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The Roe court said that legal personhood could not apply to someone before they were born, but they never said that it exists at birth. They left the legal door wide open for ANY PERSON, at any age or condition, to be denied LEGAL personhood.
And keep in mind that in the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution rules out legal personhood for Blacks. Therefore the only way Blacks could be considered “legal persons” (that is, having Constitutional protections) is if the Constitution was amended to give those biological persons LEGAL personhood as well.
If the 14th Amendment really means “LEGAL person” when it says “person”, then the 14th Amendment never applied to them. Because Blacks according to Dred Scott can’t be LEGAL persons, they can’t be “LEGAL persons born or naturalized in the United States” so they can’t be citizens. Nor can they be “LEGAL persons” who get due process and equal protection.
Roe v Wade is a decision that Hitler would have been very, very proud of. It is trash. And it is DANGEROUS trash. The only reason we don’t have an even more blatant Holocaust than we have in America currently is because judges know Roe v Wade is trash so they don’t carry out its assumptions to their natural conclusions - specifically that Blacks are still “human livestock” as decided in the Dred Scott decision.
.
Just wait until Hussen’s Baby Killing Czar (you know there has to be one, if not there will be soon) steps in and starts strong arming.
“Or be prepared to have sterilants put into the drinking water in order to “save the earth””
You’ve got to be kidding! Where did you read that? Do you have a link?
Cass Sunstein and John Holdren are a couple of names that come to mind.
John Holdren is Obama’s “science czar” and has written in support of forced abortions and sterilants in the drinking water or food supply. An article about that is at http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
I was looking for more information on Cass Sunstein and though it’s not about abortion/sterilants I found this http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/ but now my computer is acting up so it’s taking forever to try to find anything.
Here is an article about some of Obama’s “czars”. http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/obama-surrounds-himself-with-the-most-extreme-appointees-in-american-history/
As a semi-related “aside” regarding why these connections have not been brought out in the national media: Glenn Beck has done a lot to expose Obama’s radical ties and “czars”. According to a recent article (found at http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/44247 ), Beck left Fox because he and his staff were targeted by Soros operatives upset by what he was exposing. One of the threats we know about was an October 2008 Soros/Axelrod/Emanuel threat against media companies who would report on Obama’s eligibility problem. In 2008, when the eligibility issue was first being realized, Sunstein was a close confidant of Obama’s and wrote in a paper at Harvard that the government should try to discredit “conspiracy theorists” by hiring people to pose as independent individuals who debunk the “conspiracy theories” and get people to trust the government. Interestingly enough, it is now known that the Star-Bulletin newspaper birth announcements that suddenly appeared in July of 2008 were claimed to be from “independent” private individuals who got the images from the library microfilms but were in fact a single copy developed by somebody at the Honolulu Advertiser office. So that whole idea of planting (faked) “evidence” through supposedly innocent little people who just come across “evidence” was very much in Sunstein’s mind, and just so happened to appear in regards to Obama’s eligibility - which is an issue that Soros had threatened the media about also...)
Could you condense this a bit. I’m not following how Roe v Wade invalidates the 14th Amendment, or contradicts it.
The Roe v Wade decision said that it’s not enough to be a BIOLOGICAL person; the 14th Amendment only applies to people who are LEGAL persons - that is, who have specifically been given legal and/or Constitutional protections. For almost a hundred years the courts were acting as if the 14th Amendment meant every human being is protected by the Constitution, but the Roe court said that wasn’t the case - and that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to every biological person.
The Roe court didn’t say who qualifies as a “legal person” and who doesn’t - only that legal personhood (and thus 14th Amendment protections) can’t apply until after birth. They didn’t say what conditions might negate a biological person’s “legal” personhood, but the Supreme Court in the past (in the Dred Scott decision) had already ruled that the Constitution specifically rules out Blacks as being “legal persons” according to the Constitution (having Constitutional rights).
So basically the Roe v Wade decision is that not everybody who is a biological person is protected by the 14th Amendment. There is a special class of biological persons called “legal persons” who alone get the due process, equal protection under the law, and citizenship guaranteed in the 14th Amendment, and the courts get to decide who is and who isn’t in that special class of “legal persons” (just like Adolf Hitler in his day decided which biological persons were in the “protected” class and which were “human cattle”).
The Roe court said nobody can be a “legal” person until after birth but didn’t say how old a person had to be before they could be a legal person. So that is open to whatever the Supreme Court wants to decide in the future.
And the Supreme Court from the past had already ruled out Blacks from being “legal persons” so Blacks have NEVER been able to be citizens, receive due process, or have equal protection (according to Roe’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment) - since they’ve always been excluded from that special class of biological person called a “legal person”.
It’s not much shorter, but does that help you understand what I’m saying?
Horrific!
Wow - I ask you to condense it and you give me 4 paragraphs. Here is where you lose me, nowhere in the constitution or any law or court decision is the term “person” precisely defined.
Now I’m lost. Are you saying that we can’t know what was meant by the word “person” in the 14th Amendment, or how does your comment relate to the 14th Amendment and Roe v Wade? I’m not understanding your point. Can you elaborate a bit?
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.