Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Life At Conception Act Introduced By Senator Rand Paul
Freedom Outpost ^ | Mar. 20, 2013 | Tim Brown

Posted on 03/20/2013 8:32:36 AM PDT by EXCH54FE

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-105 next last
To: Responsibility2nd

I survived! And am better, just the energy isn’t filled up yet.


51 posted on 03/20/2013 11:46:52 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Happened to some friends of mine. Severely malformed.


52 posted on 03/20/2013 12:53:34 PM PDT by stinkerpot65 (Global warming is a Marxist lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

Not one other Republican has ever proposed a Constitutional solution to abortion such as this. It sweeps aside Roe v. Wade like yesterdays trash.


53 posted on 03/20/2013 12:58:46 PM PDT by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher; All
Thank you for referencing this article HerrButcher.

With all due respect to Rand Paul supporters, and I may end up being one of them, the article explaining Paul's proposed Life at Conception Act has the overtones of a publicicy stunt for 2016 imho.

More specifically, the first paragraph in the article subtly sidesteps the constitutonal reality that Congress has no constitutional authority to ratify proposed amendments to the Constitution.

"According to Senator Paul, S 583 “does not amend or interpret the Constitution, but simply relies on the 14th Amendment, which specifically authorizes Congress to enforce its provisions."

Article V of the Constitution clearly indicates that only the states have the power to ratify proposed amendments.

The problem with the statement above from the article is this. Since the states have never amended the Constitution to define life as beginning at conception, there is no enumerated right which defines when life begins that Congress can enforce via 14A imo.

In fact, although John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had worded 14A to indicate that it applied only constitutionally enumerated privileges and immunities to the states, he had more clearly stressed this point about enumerated rights in the congressional record imo.

"Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution (emphasis added)." --John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1871. (See bottom half of third column.)

(Note that activist justices ignored this clarification, imo, when they not only hid behind the 9th Amendment to apply nonenumerated abortion rights to the states in Roe v. Wade, but wrongly legislated state legislative powers from the bench in order to do so.)

Next, patriots who have read Section 1 of 14A can tell you that the excerpt from Section 1 in the referenced article left out the first sentence of Section 1. The problem with the first sentence is that it contains wording which arguably weakens Paul's proposed Life at Conception Act.

14th Amendment, Section 1 begins as follows.

All persons born (emphasis added) 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. ...

So all that justices have to argue is that unborn children aren't regarded as citizens, and therefore have no constitutionally protected rights.

So although I'd probably support Paul for 2016, I'm disappointed in Paul for what may be a publicity stunt by proposing the Life at Conception Act. But hey, since constitutionally indefensible DOMA undoubtedly won some votes from Constitution-ignorant voters for incubment lamakers, the Life at Conception Act may win some votes for Paul whether Congress passes it or not.

54 posted on 03/20/2013 1:01:41 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
...the article explaining Paul's proposed Life at Conception Act has the overtones of a publicicy stunt for 2016 imho.

That was prescient of him. He's been pushing this hard for several years now.

...there is no enumerated right which defines when life begins that Congress can enforce via 14A imo...

LOL The enumerated right is the right to life. All his bill does is define when life begins. There is no new right being defined here. Nice red herring.

55 posted on 03/20/2013 1:08:02 PM PDT by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
....nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....

The unborn are not citizens, they are persons. Persons who are not citizens do have constitutional rights. Otherwise we could just gun down illegal aliens in the streets because they have no rights.

56 posted on 03/20/2013 1:44:27 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Thanks for the ping! I always like to read good news! :)


57 posted on 03/20/2013 2:32:24 PM PDT by LUV W (All my heroes wear camos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

This is very good news.


58 posted on 03/20/2013 2:34:57 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Thanks for the ping, Jim! We haven’t had much good news lately.


59 posted on 03/20/2013 2:38:48 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ExCTCitizen
I agree with you about “pressing 1 and “pressing 2”. My grandfather came over from Lithuania in the late 1890s..worked as a blacksmith in the Chicago Stockyards for Swift and Co.,..and learned English like everyone else. There were no special privileges extended to anyone. Your children learned English in school, and adults went to special night classes to learn English, so that they could file papers for and become citizens.

Different story today...special privileges are being extended...for the vote.

60 posted on 03/20/2013 3:07:18 PM PDT by itssme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

The Fifth Amendment also supports this: “...nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”


61 posted on 03/20/2013 4:36:49 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; All
All his bill does is define when life begins.

While I appreciate what Senator Paul is trying to do, although Section 1 of 14A defined general citizenship, it did not introduce new rights for all citizens, so no rights for the unborn imo. What Section 1 did was to extend the scope of enumerated personal rights protected by the Constitution to the states and insured equal applicaton of laws. Section 1 also gave Congress the power to legislatively force the states to comply with constitutionally enumerated rights.

And although I'm dissapointed with the wording of Sec. 1 where unborn children are concerned in the context of today's issues, I've noted a likely reason why Bingham didn't foresee the need to protect unborn children as follows.

Consider that the reason that citizens, mostly rural pioneering families in the 19th century, had many children is this. It was commonly expected that some children would not survive to adulthood. So prohibiting abortion was probably Bingham's least concern when he led the drafting of Section 1 of 14A.

As a side note concerning activist justices wrongly finding so-called abortion rights in the 9th Amendment in Roe ve Wade imo, then applying such rights to the states via 14A, please consider this. Not only does Bingham's wording of Section 1 of 14A, along with his clarification in the congressional record concerning this issue, clearly indicate that 14A applies only enumerated constitutional rights to the states, but also note the following.

Bingham had read only the first eight amendments to the Constitution to the HoR, ignoring the 9th Amendment, as examples of constitutional statutes containing constitutional priviledges and immunities which 14A applied to the states.

"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Those first eight amendments are as follows: …" --John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1871. (See top half of second column.)

Bingham's ommission of the 9th Amendment is further evidence, imo, that Bingham had intended for 14A to apply only enumerated personal rights to the states, as opposed to activist justices putting on their "magic glasses" to subjectively read abortion rights into 9A and then applying this so-called right to the states via 14A.

Again, i think that the reason that the first sentence was edited out of the excerpt from Section 1 of 14A in the referenced article is the following. Sen. Paul is essentially inadvertently(?) pretending that his proposed Life at Conception Act is simultaneously a constitutionally enumerated right and also its own 14A-based congressional remedy to the infringement of this "enumerated" right.

62 posted on 03/20/2013 4:59:50 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
...although Section 1 of 14A defined general citizenship, it did not introduce new rights for all citizens, so no rights for the unborn imo.

It doesn't define life either. Some things are self-evident.

63 posted on 03/20/2013 5:31:32 PM PDT by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; EXCH54FE; onyx; trisham; TheOldLady; DJ MacWoW; JoeProBono; RedMDer; musicman; ...
God knows this is a human being, why can't man comprehend the truth?

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

64 posted on 03/20/2013 6:17:44 PM PDT by vox_freedom (America is being tested as never before in its history. May God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Buuuump!


65 posted on 03/20/2013 7:38:25 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

Oh, the leftist media won’t have to tear him down. We’ll do that all on our own.


66 posted on 03/20/2013 7:47:39 PM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

At least he wants to *really* secure the border.


67 posted on 03/20/2013 7:49:00 PM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Reagan did it. Are we going to keep slaughtering the 90% conservatives on the alter of perfection?

I am really, really sick of watching good conservatives being eaten by their own and being forced to vote for a RINO.


68 posted on 03/20/2013 7:50:46 PM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

That’s right! Forget liberty and personal responsibility! /s


69 posted on 03/20/2013 7:53:05 PM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

I also agree with him on everything else. I’m also happy that he wants to secure the border.

I can let ONE issue slide to save this country.

We are NEVER going to get the perfect candidate that ALL of us agree with 100%. (Heck, I don’t agree with most FReepers 100%) If we do, he’ll be slaughtered in the general election by the media and the left.


70 posted on 03/20/2013 7:55:50 PM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Marie

There’s just no place for it in modern America! ;-]


71 posted on 03/20/2013 7:57:52 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: vox_freedom
Watch the baby grow!

72 posted on 03/20/2013 8:18:58 PM PDT by RedMDer (Support Free Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: RedMDer
Excellent!
73 posted on 03/20/2013 8:28:24 PM PDT by vox_freedom (America is being tested as never before in its history. May God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: vox_freedom
Thanks,vox! On the Rights of Life and Liberty, the Left has a losing argument.

Barack Obama argued that we should leave the survivors of the HEINOUS crime left in a hamper to die slowly.

74 posted on 03/20/2013 9:01:56 PM PDT by RedMDer (Support Free Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: RedMDer

“the left has a losing argument”

yep, noticed that in the last 40 years and the last 2 elections myself.

//sarc


75 posted on 03/20/2013 9:05:41 PM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe; All
Persons who are not citizens do have constitutional rights.

Good point!

However, it remains that Section 1 of 14A, because of its inclusion of the word "born," indirectly defines people as those who have already been born. This minimally gives activist justices a license to strike down the Life at Conception Act if they choose to do so.

This is also why I've been arguing that activist justices wrongly ignored that abortion is not constitutionally enumerated right when they subjectivel found abortion rights in 9A and applied it to states via 14A.

Sen. Paul actually needs a constitutional amendment to do what he's trying to do with his Life at Conception Act imo.

76 posted on 03/20/2013 9:06:36 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
It doesn't define life either. Some things are self-evident.

I agree that some things are self-evident. But activist justices will predictably ignore their God-given respect for life.

77 posted on 03/20/2013 9:18:02 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

If the possible opinions of activist Justices is the concern then there is no point in fighting for the Republic at all. It’s over.


78 posted on 03/20/2013 9:20:56 PM PDT by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; All
If the possible opinions of activist Justices is the concern then there is no point in fighting for the Republic at all. It’s over.

I respectfully disagree. The basic reason that activist justices are getting away with tearing the Constitution to pieces, imo, is because many flag-waving patriots evidently haven't bothered to read it for themeselves. This is why it's so important to reconnect Constitution-ignorant patriots, including Obama supporters, with the Constitution and its history, particularly the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers.

79 posted on 03/20/2013 9:42:09 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
‘Pro-Choice’ Slave Masters Losing War
The pro-aborts are losing. They know it,and they hate it.
As LifeNews.com reported in January,“CNN released the results of a new poll showing a majority of Americans want all or most abortions prohibited – a clear pro-life majority.”
Indeed,the winds of life are blowing free the foul stench of a pro-abortion culture of death.
This is why President Obama and his fellow pro-abort zealot,HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius,have unilaterally,arbitrarily,and unconstitutionally forced, through Obamacare,every taxpaying American citizen to fund “free” abortion-on-demand.

This draconian overreach is in perfect keeping with the 2012 DNC platform,which,for the first time,admits without shame:“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to … abortion,regardless of ability to pay.”
Psalm 8:28 commands:“Defend the weak and the fatherless;uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.”
To be sure,there can be none more oppressed than the tens of millions who,over four short decades,have been – and will continue to be – slaughtered within the safe haven of their own mothers’ wombs.
With its 1973 Roe decision,the U.S. Supreme Court put the government’s official stamp of approval on mass murder. Since then,the battle lines have been drawn. This is war. They,“pro-choicers,” are the bad guys,while pro-lifers are the good guys. It really is that simple – that black and white. It’s good versus evil.
History will reflect as much.

To the unenthusiastic mother,politically motivated abortion violence is deviously portrayed as an acceptable escape from what may seem a desperate situation. To the innocent child,it is – without fail and without due process – execution by torture.
Consider the horrific practice of Partial-Birth Abortion,innocuously tagged “Intact Dilation and Extraction.” This is a practice so brutal and so needless that even the liberal American Medical Association (AMA) admitted that it is never necessary under any circumstances.
During a partial-birth abortion,the abortionist pulls a fully “viable” child – often kicking and thrashing – feet first from her mother’s womb,leaving only the top of her head in the birth canal. This is so the abortionist can technically claim to be performing an abortion,rather than committing murder.
He then stabs the child through the base of her skull with scissors,piercing her brain until her kicking and moving about suddenly and violently jerks to a halt. Next,he opens the scissors to enlarge the wound,inserts a vacuum tube,and sucks out her brains,thereby collapsing her skull.
Her now-limp and lifeless body is then cast away like so much garbage.


Appalling,isn’t it? Infanticide by any objective measure.

So,naturally,Mr. Obama,reasonable fellow that he is,agrees with the AMA,correct? He and other “pro-choicers” were the first to applaud the high court when it upheld a ban on this Hitlerian practice,right?
Wrong.
Barack Obama unbelievably called the Court’s decision in Gonzales v. Carhart part of a concerted effort “to steadily roll back the hard-won rights of American women.” In so doing,he revealed to the world that leftist support for abortion “rights” has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with science or “health care.”
Moreover,consider Mr. Obama’s opposition to the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act.” It passed both houses of Congress in 2002 with overwhelming bipartisan support. Born Alive very simply requires that when a baby survives an attempted abortion – when she is “born alive” – further attempts to kill her must immediately cease,and steps must be taken to save her life.
Yet,incredibly,this president,while serving in the Illinois Senate,vehemently opposed the bill’s Illinois twin. He complained that requiring efforts to save the live victim of a botched abortion is “really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”
Barack Obama’s solution? Finish off the little pest.
80 posted on 03/20/2013 9:46:34 PM PDT by RedMDer (Support Free Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Excellent! Hopefully you will connect with the fact that there is nothing in the Constitution preventing Congress from establishing a definition of when life begins.


81 posted on 03/20/2013 10:01:27 PM PDT by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; All

We’re having this discussion because flag-waving patriots actually didn’t know enough about the Constitution, particularly the Founding States’ division of federal and state powers evidenced by 10A, to remedy the situation when activist justices first legalized abortion. Justices needed to be impeached, imo, for ignoring Bingham’s clarification of how 14A was intended to work when the Supreme Court legalized abortion. But evidently everybody was asleep at the wheel.

Also, although I’m not really blaming Bingham, I regret that Bingham didn’t forsee major problems with respect to his inclusion of the word “born” in the language of Section 1 of 14A and the subsequent legalization of abortion in the next century. It arguably makes Sen. Paul’s proposed legislation look like a backdoor remedy for effectively overturning Roe v. Wade.

And I’m guessing that the prospects for a RINO-controlled HoR and liberal Senate and Oval Office actually passing his bill are next to nothing. But even if it predictably fails, it makes Sen. Paul look to good to conservatives in the long run.


82 posted on 03/20/2013 10:36:23 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

It is a remedy for Roe v. Wade but I wouldn’t call it ‘backdoor.’ It’s a Constitutional solution to the lack of clarity about it in the Bill of Rights. As far as the chances of the Life At Conception Act passing now I agree. But in order to get any controversial legislation passed you have to put if forward over and over again. Rand Paul has been pushing this for quite a while now. No one else has.


83 posted on 03/20/2013 10:52:32 PM PDT by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
It’s a Constitutional solution to the lack of clarity about it in the Bill of Rights.

With all due respect TigersEye, your statement brings to mind the liberal argument that Clause 5 of Section 1 of Article II, the natural born citizen clause, is not defined in the Constitution. But a little research reveals that nbc is a well-understood, well-documented legal term that the drafters of the Constitution were familiar with. This is why I don't put much faith into the side-door argument of claiming that "person" is undefined in Section 1 of 14A, particularly since Bingham also used the word born in that statute.

84 posted on 03/21/2013 9:34:04 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

You sound more like the liberal arguing that a fetus does not deserve the legal status of ‘person’ accorded to all other human beings.


85 posted on 03/21/2013 12:26:42 PM PDT by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; All
You sound more like the liberal arguing that a fetus does not deserve the legal status of ‘person’ accorded to all other human beings.

Noting that I have referenced evidence that corrupt, 10A-ignoring justices unconstitutionally legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade imo, I am skeptical of the approach that Sen. Paul is taking to resolve the issue, arguably a PC approach that appeals to conservatives.

Again, noting that I agree that life begins at conception, the post Civil War 14A was concerned primarily with protecting freed slaves, not addressing when life begins. And I think that past injustices concerning so-called abortion rights need to be resolved so that Constitution-ignorant patriots wise up to ongoing Supreme Court corruption.

86 posted on 03/21/2013 1:35:18 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
I fully noted all of those points you had previously made and took them into consideration. I hope you will note that I was not responding in a pejorative sense but in the same vein you were, ie as a subjective description of your position as I see it.

Let me also note that the 14th Amendment was concerned with defining citizenship only not life or its Constitutional protections.

Whatever other conservatives think of the LACA, it appeals to me because I see it as the direct approach following the intent of the founding governing principles in the straightest possible line.

87 posted on 03/21/2013 1:47:35 PM PDT by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE
I guarantee that the same pukes who are whining about his stupid stance on amnesty will be the same ones denouncing him for being too "Akin" on abortion.

Purists on amnesty, but total sell outs on abortion.

88 posted on 03/21/2013 1:52:21 PM PDT by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65
"Is a fertilized egg in a test tube a human life?"

Yes --- assuming, of course, that it was conceived from a human ovum and a human sperm. If canine gametes were used, it would be a dog. If feline, a cat. If equine, a horse. That's indisputable.

"If a nurse drops the test tube, is that manslaughter?"

If negligence or criminal intent are involved --- the same as if she dropped a preemie. That's by the way, one of the big reasons why babies should never be conceived in vitro. It exposes them to hugely magnified risk. Humans should be conceived only in vivo.

"If a mother has a fetus with no head, should she be forced to deliver it?"

If she has a fetus with no head, the fetus (actually, embryo) will perish very early (probably even before pregnancy is detected), and very naturally and probably very easily. No need to worry about "delivery" of headless babies; no need, either, to induce an abortion.

89 posted on 03/23/2013 12:39:21 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("You can observe a lot just by watchin'." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65
But you said "no head"? Deformed is not the same as decapitated.

Do you think the infant should be killed?

90 posted on 03/23/2013 12:44:39 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("You can observe a lot just by watchin'." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
But even if it were true that the unborn are not U.S. Citizens, it is not true that non-citizens have no rights. One cannot murder, enslave or seize the property of a non-citizen ad libitum.

Our Declaration of Independence --- in the light of which our Constitution is to be interpreted --- acknowledges that basic human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are given by God, innate, and neither awarded nor rescinded by Kings, Constitutions, Congresses, or Courts.

91 posted on 03/23/2013 12:51:30 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("You can observe a lot just by watchin'." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Do you think the infant should be killed?

A fetus with no head or brain? I think that should be up to the parents. My friends had an abortion, even though they are themselves conservative and anti-abortion.

Do you believe that invitro fertilization ought to also be illegal?

92 posted on 03/23/2013 1:26:31 PM PDT by stinkerpot65 (Global warming is a Marxist lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65
"My friends had an abortion, even though they are themselves conservative and anti-abortion."

This is a self-contradicting statement. They were certainly in a grievous, pitiable situation, the moreso because they discovered, under difficult circumstances, that they were actually pro-abortion.

Other mothers and fathers, in the same circumstances, decided not to slay the unfortunate child. They are the ones who are actually "anti-abortion."

An anencephalic child will shortly die. If he or she lives but briefly and breathes his last in his mother's arms, it is heartbreaking but it is not a crime. To kill him or her intentionally is something else. It's a denial of the child's humanity, a refusal of parental love and, frankly, homicide.

"Do you believe that in vitro fertilization ought to also be illegal?"

Yes. Thank you for asking. It makes the conceived child, first, a lab experiment and then, a kind of living property in a commercial transaction, subject to culling and disposal if not up to specifications, like a substandard lab rat.

This falls short of the respect which we owe to a human child.

Children have a right to be conceived in the marital embrace and accepted unconditionally. Anything short of that is wrongful from the point of view of the child's own dignity as a person, not a thing.

93 posted on 03/23/2013 1:44:44 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("You can observe a lot just by watchin'." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Children have a right to be conceived in the marital embrace and accepted unconditionally. Anything short of that is wrongful from the point of view of the child's own dignity as a person, not a thing.

That says it all, with beauty.

94 posted on 03/23/2013 2:38:01 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Thank you.


95 posted on 03/23/2013 3:02:33 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("You can observe a lot just by watchin'." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Truth is usually quite simple and can be expressed in simple language.

There can be reams of details, but the basics can be said simply, so that everyone can clearly understand.


96 posted on 03/23/2013 3:07:07 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I’m afraid I’ll need a scripture to back that up. Not that you are necessarily wrong, but I’d like to hear God’s opinion on invitro fertilization.


97 posted on 03/23/2013 4:59:11 PM PDT by stinkerpot65 (Global warming is a Marxist lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65; little jeremiah
"You, Lord, created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you
because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together intricately
in the depths of the Eretz.
Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
How precious to me are your thoughts,
O God!
How vast is the sum of them!

Psalm 139

You will not find in vitro fertilization in your Biblical concordance, for obvious reasons--- the same reasons you won't find BDSM, online porn addiction, party drugs, fisting, post-op transsexuals, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, artificial insemination, and Queer Studies Majors. These things are either technically or culturally unknown in Biblical times.

However there are Biblical principles which apply here, because although the Bible doesn't say anything explicitly about these perversions, it does say a lot about the wisdom of Divine Providence in the design of human nature.

In other words, God wrote both the "Book of Scripture" and the "Book of Nature." By this I mean, He is the Author of both: the Creation which He made, and the Scriptures He has given us to show forth His will.

Based on Genesis, we can see that God's original plan for us, "In the divine image He created him, male and female He created them" --- was very good. We know that our embodied maleness and femaleness, and the way we make love and make life, reflects His will and His wisdom.

Therefore when things go wrong for us bodily, for instance, the tragedy of infertility, the true ethical aim of medical practice, is simply to restore the original good natural design. We must aim to restore natural fertility, which means, the ability to conceive and bear children through natural marital intercourse.

Medical intervention is good when it heals injuries, cures diseases, strengthens functions that have been weakened or disabled. The whole key is to repair and restore back to normal.

Thee is nothing normal or natural about masturbating into a jar or a plastic baggie, handing your sperm over to a lab tech, meanwhile some woman's body (maybe your wife's) is forced into hyperovulation --- a pathological condition --- with injected hormones; then the ova are harvested, and the ova and sperm are mixed in a laboratory procedure which is not intimately personal and certainly not lovemaking; then the resulting offspring, in their vulnerable embryonic state, are scrutinized and any that are disfavored are culled and destroyed.

The whole procedure in intentionally the very opposite of normal physiological function; the results of procreation are treated like lab materials, not like nascent creations of God Who is the Lord and Giver of Life. There is no innate sense that human procreation is sacred, or that we are to "image" God --- the Creator God, Who made love and made life in the same sacred instant. Rather we force a technological process like the veterinary breeding of pedigreed dogs and race-horses, or the brewing of batches of bacteria.

In ther words, what was designed by Divine Wisdom to be intimate, veiled from public gaze, grounded in interpersonal love, beautiful in its intertwined meanings -- re-read Psalm 139 --- becomes instead a manufacturing process and a crass commercial transaction.

It confuses the categories of "person" and "product." Even legally, it degrades "child" into "property."

It does not restore natural fertility; in fact, it doesn't even try. It does not heal sexual intercourse as the natural source of life: it replaces it. It does not honor the conceived child: it treats the embryonic child as a thing to be bred or to be discarded, or even to be experimented on, sold, or flushed down the sewer as medical waste.

This fails to restore natural sexual health and disrespects sanctity of the beginnings of life.

98 posted on 03/23/2013 6:28:50 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (May the Lord bless you and keep you, may He turn to you His countenance, and give you peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; stinkerpot65

Thank you, Mrs.Don-o. Poetic truth.

Stinker, the principles of truth are clear. It’s up to the clear mind, unfettered by envy, lust and greed, to apply the eternal principles to the changing times and circumstances.

They always apply, when viewed with a clear mind and heart.


99 posted on 03/23/2013 8:57:41 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Bhagavad Gita 5.16

When, however, one is enlightened with the knowledge by which nescience is destroyed, then his knowledge reveals everything, as the sun lights up everything in the daytime.


100 posted on 03/23/2013 8:59:11 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-105 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson