Only if sworn officers of government won't keep their oaths.
-- George Washington "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths?"
Posted on 04/13/2012 5:40:09 AM PDT by Wpin
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a pro-life bill into law today to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
House members passed the bill by a 37-22 vote and abortions after that time period would not be allowed except in very rare cases of medical emergency. The bill also requires abortion facilities to allow women to have an ultrasound of their unborn baby at least 24 hours prior to having the abortion. In many cases women change their minds about a planned abortion after seeing the images of their developing child.
Americans United for Life president Charmaine Yoest commended Brewer and called the bill “a life-protecting bill designed to ensure that women don’t suffer from the risks of a dangerous, late-term procedure.” She said Arizona is the first state in the country to enact a late-term ban based on concerns over protecting women’s health by demonstrating that abortion is not only bad for the unborn child, it is also bad for women.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
How soon before this is declared unconstitutional?
OH, BUT GREAT NEWS ANYWAY! GLORY HALlLUJAH!
That's all well and good, but does even a legally-recognized PERSON have the unlimited right to the use of another person's body for as long as necessary? The Thirteenth Amendment is also part of the Constitution, remember, along with the Fourteenth.
I don't think the legal issues are as cut and dried as some people think they are. It won't do a lot of good to finally get the courts to recognize the personhood of the fetus if fetal homicide is then just considered another form of justifiable homicide.
Well said.
meaningless
Only if sworn officers of government won't keep their oaths.
-- George Washington "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths?"
Parents have a moral and legal obligation to protect and care for their children.
We're not barbarians.
develope the science of gestation outside the mother or gestational transplants and suddenly the debate goes from choice vs life into viability vs convenience.
we already have the start of this with women/couples who buy frozen fetilized eggs. Now it is just a matter of converging frozen implants and premature births so that viability is at ANY point during pregnancy.
(of course you also have to develope the support laws too establishing that a transplanted fetus is the property of the woman carrying it and if married/consent the paternity is the husbands as a matter of law)
One: A fetus is a living, genetically distinct human being. It is not part of "her own body."
Two: A tenant subject to eviction is not unlike a trespasser. A fetus is not trespassing on the woman's body; he is exactly where he is supposed to be at that stage of his development.
Three: Your analogy only holds water if the landlord has the legal right to kill his tenant, and then throw his dismembered remains into the trash.
You are wasting your breath debating with EV. I have had this argument with him before. He would gladly allow millions of babies to be aborted rather that accept a partial victory on this issue. He is truly an "all or nothing" zealot of the first order.
On the other hand, I will not say that if I am not able to save all, I will not save any. Rather, I will will work to save every one that I can, with the goal of eventually being able to save them all.
In the overwhelming majority of cases where the child's use of the mother's body as home and nutritional source (i.e. pregnancy) was initiated willingly by the mother (i.e. consensual sex), then I might say yes.
You might call it entering into a contract of sorts.
Here’s a hypothetical with a born baby:
You see a little baby, perfectly innocent, and are shocked to hear that someone has been granted a 9-month window to kill her.
Then you hear that due to a new law, the person is now limited to a 5-month window to kill that innocent little baby girl.
Would that be anything to celebrate?
Celebrate? No. But lets extend the analogy - under the first law, a million children will be killed in a year - under the 2nd, 200,000 of those will be saved. Is the first law better than the 2nd or not?
Make that “is the 2nd law better than the first or not?”
It's a start. Should have been 12 weeks, but they had to make sure they could get the votes.
Obama thinks nine months and one day is pretty good.
If a daughter of mine was the baby in question - who could legally be killed within a 5-month window under the new law - I would not accept that.
Better to have laws in the Third Law category, which ban abortions at conception.
Of course, that's a given. You and others seem to have missed this point: Apartment : uterus :: tenant : fetus.
Two: A tenant subject to eviction is not unlike a trespasser. A fetus is not trespassing on the woman's body; he is exactly where he is supposed to be at that stage of his development.
A tenant subject to eviction was also exactly where he was supposed to be until the point in time where the landlord decided to assert his authority over his property to end the tenant's occupancy.
Three: Your analogy only holds water if the landlord has the legal right to kill his tenant, and then throw his dismembered remains into the trash.
What else do you think the extreme end of a sheriff conducting a forcible eviction is? If the tenant resists, the guns come out, the media calls it a "standoff," and the tenant ends up outside either breathing or not. That's just how the police operate, and they do it on behalf of the landlord.
Google "Eviction turns deadly" - there's 1,720 results.
Look, abortion is a horrific travesty, and our nation and humanity as a whole will certainly be judged harshly for it. But Ceaucescu in Romania was also judged harshly for his crimes.
Not even close to analogous. A fetus comes into existence within the uterus, an organ designed for that purpose. An apartment is simply a set of rooms available to rent by an arbitrary individual.
What else do you think the extreme end of a sheriff conducting a forcible eviction is? If the tenant resists, the guns come out, the media calls it a "standoff," and the tenant ends up outside either breathing or not.
LOL. What are you trying to assert, that a fetus is a squatter that refuses to vacate his mother's uterus, and this makes abortion necessary?
This is really simple: the unborn are not intruders. They are a natural function of the reproductive system.
And that is why we have no abortion law of any kind in Canada. The last time the government tried to restrict abortion, in 1991, conservatives were upset that it banned some abortions rather than all abortions, and decided that it was better to side with the feminists who wanted no restrictions.
Should one of these all-or-nothing zealots ever end up at my table for a meal, I plan on refusing to serve him even one portion, unless he agrees to eat everything I prepared.
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.