I would agree, if it would work. But, the 14th amendment already defines personhood, according to the Supreme Court. If mere legislation was passed to define it otherwise, it's my theory the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional. 
Posted on 10/08/2007 7:29:07 AM PDT by Dukes Travels
It’s time for the fight against abortion to move to a new front. An honest look at the landscape suggests that the longtime goal of the pro-life movement – the banning of abortion – is never going to be achieved.
We need to try something else.
I believe a fetus is a human being who deserves protection under the law from being killed. But if the goal is to save the lives of unborn children – and it should be – we need to look at our primary line of attack and see what it has achieved, and what it is likely to achieve in the future.
(Excerpt) Read more at northstarwriters.com ...
And using those resources they save on true charity - Crisis pregnancy centers with adoption resources. Make adoption a "good" choice again.
Not everyone is ready to be a parent, but there are many out there that have been unable to become parents.
Correction: Don't let Hillary or Giuliani in the White House as both are rabidly pro-abortion and would nominate judges that would uphold abortion rights.
I would agree, if it would work. But, the 14th amendment already defines personhood, according to the Supreme Court. If mere legislation was passed to define it otherwise, it's my theory the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional.
I agree with both of your ideas and especially making adpotion a wonderful choice again. My nephew is adopted and loved.
I believe this writer is merely trying to condition pro-lifers that they have to accept a pro-abortion, liberal like Rudy Giuliani and is trying to give the Republicans cover to abandon the pro-life issue at a time when pro-lifers HAVE been making significant progress in reducing abortion and changing SCOTUS.
Constitutional amendment is needed to shield the human right to life from activist judges.
The GOP has no interest in actually settling the issue. Just as the DNC counts on a steady 90+% black voter support, the GOP counts on the right-to-life block. But they do nothing to change the status quo. They don’t even fight to defund taxpayer subsidizing of abortion.
The Constitutional Amendment should address fetal stem cell harvesting, genetic discrimination, and abortion as birth control.
I don’t know that we will ever see this OR ANY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS (the Supreme Court dictates new Constitutional beliefs, there is no will by legislators to go to on record for or against such changes anymore).
That point is easily countered by showing the humanity of the baby in a woman's womb. That's why support for abortion continues to drop ultrasound technology continues to advance.
If the choice comes down to the two, I'll take a Republican, i.e., Rudy. HillaryCare will have 100% federally funded abortions and I don't see Rudy doing that. And without at least a Republican in the WH, then good Conservatives like my Texas Congressman and Senators will be useless against something like Hillary.
It isn’t the stigma. There is no stigma about having unmarried sex, especially as a teen, these days.
It is selfishness. “I don’t want to have a baby right now”, “I don’t want to give up my baby to someone else”, “I don’t like the guy THAT much”...
Can she drink/smoke/dope during pregnancy without charges?
Can she sell a kidney?
The baby has a body too. She is the vessel for another life.
Essentially, we officially recognize a woman's right to "reproductive freedom" as defined by the abortion advocates themselves. But, we also maintain it is fundamentally unjust to allow women to have the entire gestation period of the fetus to decide whether or not to reproduce, but expect men to make that decision before the procreative act is even performed.
We provide for male reproductive rights by allowing "paper abortions." At any time during the pregnancy, the male may got to the local courthouse and officially disavow any responsibility for the child if born. Also, children born without official notification of the father would automatically be considered "aborted" unless he accepts fatherhood.
In this way we enlist the ranks of deadbeats to overcome the abortion advocates by turning them against each other.
Thus the original dynamic is restored, and they did it to themselves!
The reason we have the butchery we have now is because pregnant woman have a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation that relies on "women's rights" on the one hand, and compassion for children in compeling fathers to support on the other. Whatever she decides, he's compelled by law to facilitate.
We can break that vicious circle by doing nothing more than giving to men what feminist have been calling a woman's right for 50 years.
Liberal Republicans ALWAYS do more damage than liberal Democrats in office. Giuliani can get liberal legislation passed that Republicans would filibuster to death.
A Giuliani Presidency would guarantee massive numbers of seats lost in Congress while a Hillary Presidency would likely return Republicans to the majority, possibly as quickly as 2010.
It's NOT possible to stop the advancement of liberalism by electing a liberal of either party to office.
I have. They maintain they should have the right, anyway.
No way for me.
Amen FRiend.
There is a very good reason adoptive parents go overseas....and it ain't cause asian babies are cuter!
A lot of GOOD things happened for conservatives when Bill Clinton was in office -- Republicans gained 500 seats nationwide and welfare reform and a balanced budget as a result.
A Giuliani Presidency returns the nation to the Nixon years where a liberal Republican presides over a shrinking Republican minority in Congress and there is no halting liberal legislation.
Putting Giuliani in office guarantees 1) No conservative in the White House for EIGHT years and 2) That Republicans won't be a majority in Congress for at least a decade. Conservatism will have been set back decades.
Hiya.
No I’m not. I’m trying to urge the pro-life movement to focus its efforts in a direction by which it can save a lot more babies than it is saving - or ever will have any hopes of saving - by trying to do it through politics.
I disagree with the author's general premise here. Abortion WILL be outlawed at some time here in the U.S. If not now, then it'll happen 50-100 years from now when this country is filled with Mexican Muslims.
” As it stands right now, someone renting a home has more legal rights than an unborn,”
That should be on billboards
You really, truly, in your heart believe a President Rudy Guiliani would be just as bad as a President Hillary Clinton. You would honestly allow the miliitary to salute that woman as their Commander in Chief? Are you that selfish?
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.