[wagglebee]

Wagglebee (probably also "sick, twisted, etc) has suggested elsewhere that a truly pro-life POTUS would end the controversy at law by signing an executive order defining 14th Amendment "persons" as including the unborn from conception. The prolem with that is that the next time the US is foolish enough to elect some Muzzie smooching Stalinist anti-American wingnut as POTUS, that Executive Order would be reversed and other near equally evil policies would also become "law" by the same means. The Founding Fathers created Congress for many reasons and a primary one is the enactment of actually constitutional laws and policies. Congress should define the unborn as persons for 14th Amendment purposes. POTUS should sign off on such legislation without reservation and, if necessary, remove fedcourt jurisdiction over abortion as the constitution allows.

My preference would obviously be for Congress to pass a law having babies recognized under the 14th Amendment. However, I believe that an executive order would also work. While Obama, et al. might not believe that babies are unborn, they would almost certainly recognize that it is politically untenable to declare so publicly. In other words, the public would "get used" to seeing babies as persons and that would be hard to undo.

In any event, the courts need to be out of it and I've long believed that Blackmun suggested as much in his opinion.

If the babykillers, on the last day of the legislative session, credibly tell the pro-life legislators that a law will be enacted that will prohibit each and every abortion after week thirteen of a pregnancy but be silent as to babies in weeks 1-13 of other pregnancies, voting no means refusing to save the babies that can be saved? Is it not morally acceptable to address the legislature, announcing one's vote for the legislation while vowing to return. as often as necessary to take away the "legal" status of the remaining abortions? Save those who can be saved, always so long as one NEVER concedes the legitimacy of ANY abortion.

In THEORY that sounds fine, in REALITY we are all aware that these laws don't stop abortions because they ALWAYS contain an "and then you can kill the baby" clause a mile wide.

[EternalVigilance]

What people need to understand is that there is nothing wrong with incrementalism, per se.

The problem is with immoral incrementalism.

Virtually every piece of “pro-life” legislation offered these days falls into the latter category. They surrender the only real moral, constitutional, and legal arguments against abortion, and codify permission to kill all of the babies, as long as they are killed on schedule, and by an arbitrary set of man-made rules. This doesn’t “save some,” as the mostly naive supporters of these bills suppose. In fact, along with the judicial supremacist fallacy that the same folks suffer under, it guarantees the continuation of abortion on demand.

Here’s an interesting essay on the subject that I think is very good:

http://americanrtl.org/good-vs-bad-abortion-incrementalism