Posted on 04/06/2013 7:12:28 PM PDT by markomalley
A phrase declaring that life begins "at fertilization" tucked into new abortion legislation in Kansas is creating concern among abortion rights advocates that the wording will inspire new attempts to prevent the procedure.
Supporters of the measure said the language is no more than a statement of principle — similar to those found in several states, including neighboring Missouri — rather than an attempt to prevent any pregnancies from being terminated. But advocates on both sides of the issue acknowledge the wording could prove helpful to abortion opponents over time.
The bill, sent late Friday to Gov. Sam Brownback, would block potential tax breaks for abortion providers and ban them from furnishing materials or instructors for public school sex education classes. It also outlaws sex-selection abortions and spells out in greater detail what information doctors must provide to women before an abortion.
The measure's provision declaring that life begins at fertilization says that "unborn children have interests in life, health and well-being that should be protected" and that their parents also have "protectable interests" in their children's well-being. A similar idea is embodied in "personhood" measures in other states, which are aimed at revising their constitutions to ban abortion; none have been enacted, though the question will be put to North Dakota voters in 2014.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
ping
There's really only one way to deal with such critters.
Apart from religious and moral consideration, the life of a new human being, genetically distinct from its parents, and undeniably living, DOES begin with fertilization.
It’s a scientific fact, inconvenient as it might be to some.
What they hate or are loathe to discuss with their "clients," is the life that they are about to destroy, is "it" a baby and does the "procedure" about to be performed, end that life (kill the baby!)
Life does begin at conception. From my homepage
___________________________________________________________________
I’ve posted this in a couple of places and it doesn’t seem to get much more than a yawn, even though it’s kinda-sorta an incremental approach.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1908148/posts?page=125#125
I believe a fetus is a human being who deserves protection under the law from being killed.
***I do too. That fetus deserves protection extended by the state.
I do wonder if it is biblical to extend “full” protection to a fetus? I.e. when a man hurts a pregnant woman, he’s expected to pay an eye for an eye & a tooth for a tooth. But if the unborn baby is killed, the price is not the same.
Perhaps it is time to consider a 3 (or even 4) tiered system of protection.
Tier 1: Living, viable, late term baby which will not be aborted unless the life of the mother is at stake.
Tier 2: Living, not-yet-viable pre-born human who should have the right to protection and life and a safe womb to which it can attain viability. Cannot be aborted unless there is an open rape case associated with the pregnancy or the life of the mother is at stake.
Tier 3: Living, early stage, not yet viable pre-born human for whom we do not extend the rights of life in this society because of a historical snag where we once considered such tissue not to be a baby. We as a society thought it was best to consider it a private decision. I personally do not believe in Tier3 abortions, but I can understand that there are many who think it is a “right to choose” at this stage. It may be time to consider a program where the woman declares her pregnancy and intent to abort. Our societal function at this point would be to provide a family that is willing to adopt this baby and to put up this woman for 6-8 months in a safe environment so the baby can grow and maybe the woman can learn some life skills. If our society cannot muster the forces necessary to save this baby, the woman has the sickening “right” to abort this pregnancy. Time for us to put up or shut up.
With a 3-tiered plan in place, women would stop using abortion as a means of birth control. Millions of lives would be saved. We would extend the right to life to every human that we have resources to save. Unfortunately, if we cannot put up the resources to save the Tier3 babies, we still would have this horrible practice staining our nation’s soul.
125 posted on 10/08/2007 1:43:20 PM PDT by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq — via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
___________________________________________________________________
It was ‘tucked’ into the legislation? Gosh, how insidious!
And this is going to severely piss off a whole lot of fertility clinics and lab rats intent upon insane human experimentation...but it is true.
It has always been true that human life begins at conception.
It will always be true.
I wonder why they used the term “at fertilization” instead of “at conception”. To further dehumanize the fetus, maybe?
Abortion is not an express constitutional right. Activist justices were wrong, imo, to ignore that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had officially clarified that 14A applied only enumerated rights to the states.
"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." --Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session (See bottom half of 3rd column.)
So the states would have had to amend the Constitution to make abortion an express right before the Supreme Court could have applied such a right to the states via 14A in Roe v. Wade imo.
In fact, regardless that justices put on their "magic glasses" to find abortion rights in the 9th Amendment, note that Bingham had actually ignored the 9th Amendment, reading only the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing priviliges or immunities which 14A applied to the states.
"See" the missing 9th Amendment in the bottom half of the middle column of the page in the congressional record containing Bingham's discussion of 14A.
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session (See bottom half of 2nd column.)
I wonder why they used the term “at fertilization” instead of “at conception”. To further dehumanize the fetus, maybe?
***********************************************
I’m all for keeping it as scientific and truthful as possible , the word choice was probably to short circuit those who claim that pregnancy doesn’t begin until implantation and to deny them the fig leaf of a worthless argument splitting the differences that would have allowed the continuation of fertility centers and others creating dozens of earliest stage human beings 90% of which they fully intend to discard. Science is against Roe , there is no reason to be afraid , use the truth as our ultimate weapon.
As it stands now, some people now are comfortable aborting babies in an ill defined fetal stage of development.
And it seems many are comfortable “harvesting” eggs from female ovaries, as if they were donating blood, or hair.
Currently, popular opinions about female emancipation from second class human status is dependent on women pretending our reproductive systems are “equal” to males, and unworthy of different societal protections.
Females are born with a finite number of eggs.
Males continuously manufacture short lived sperm cells.
Rather than killing human babies, it would seem more logical to seek to limit unwanted male sperm from coming into contact with female egg ovulation.
Oh gee, we circle right back to an ethical and morality based concept of men controlling their sperm spreading instincts, versus women going against nature and killing their babies.
Bingo! Sociopaths! They get upset when Sarah Palin kills a carribou. But they don’t care at all about killing millions of babies.
I’ve only heard that life begins at fertilization in the past few years. It was always life begins at conception as long as I’ve been alive. I’m not trying to start a religious discussion, and I realize that my non-Catholic Freerepublic friends will not agree with me, but as a Roman Catholic, we believe that Mary, mother of Jesus, was conceived without original sin. That means that when her soul entered her body, she was without sin. She was never the Immaculate Fertilization. I’m not going to respond to biblical responses denying this. This is my belief as is all Roman Catholics.
In my city, New Orleans, Planned Parenthood announced plans to open a large facility in the heart of the downtown area. It’s near a delapidated area where the crime rate is very high. The mayor has made an announcement that he is going to get to the bottom of the high murder rate and see what can be done to curtail it. The mayor, Mitch Landrieu, brother of Sen. Mary Landrieu, is supposed to be a devout Catholic (ha!). Maybe if he wants to bring down the murder rate, he should tell PP “NO!” to opening up a killing center in his city.
Little by little, we are going back to reality. In the meantime, almost 5 million young children have been smoked. This must stop!
I think conception and fertilization are the same thing. I’ve also usually heard conception used, in the phrase, “Life begins at conception,” but fertilization would seem to mean the same thing, I think.
The first entry at Dictionary.com reads:
1.
the act of conceiving; the state of being conceived.
2.
fertilization; inception of pregnancy
Fertilization sounds so clinical, so cold. It sounds like we are talking about chicken eggs, or putting cow manure on crops. If it means the same thing, and I’m not sure it does, why not say conception, as has been said for as long as I can remember? I conceived my children, not fertilized them.
Maybe we should start a movement to legalize dog fights. Surely there’ll be no opposition from the pro-choice crowed. At least one dog has a fighting chance to survive. That’s more than a baby has. Or just make it legal to kill every animal we “choose”.
I hope you know I’m not for this. Just making a point.
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.