Posted on 02/19/2012 3:53:59 AM PST by EternalVigilance
America's Party ratified its 2012 Platform in national convention yesterday, making an already-great conservative document even better, with the expansion of its solid property rights plank and the addition of the Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution as its primary pro-life language. Text included below for your consideration.
Thank you, I had looked through his ISSUES menu and been unable to find it.
You’re still making Utilitarian arguments, not moral or constitutional arguments. And I’ve already said, even if you somehow manage to save a few via these lawless laws, such laws remain grossly immoral and completely unconstitutional.
If you make an abortion “illegal” at twenty weeks, but codify permission for the child to be killed before that, the child can still be killed at nineteen weeks and 6 days. Every child remains vulnerable, not protected. All they have to do to butcher them is to get to the baby-killer on time.
But our Constitution demands that every person be equally protected, based on the absolute fact that they are a human person, not on the calendar, not on geographical location.
That’s for starters.
Add in the fact that these legislators are a bunch of judicial supremacists, as evidenced by the way this particular legislation is written, among many other evidences, and you have assured that that all will continue to be killed anyhow. You’ve sacrificed, as I’ve said to you multiple times, the only real moral, constitutional and legal arguments against abortion. Therefore, you’ve surrendered the battle before it has even been joined.
The Planned Parenthood ghouls laugh at the people pushing this stuff.
They don’t laugh at the assertion of the personhood of the child and their resulting explicit, imperative protection by the Constitution.
For very good reasons.
BUT YOU HAVE YET TO DEMONSTRATE the very foundation of your assertion, namely that the legislation defines ANYTHING, much less that it “allows” killing of the “persons” that it’s defined.
Can you show me where in this legislation (1) ANYTHING is defined, and where or how it (2) “Allows the killing” of those defined as Persons?
Further, can you explain to me how YOUR ENTIRE POSITION on this matter does not “turn on” those two objectively verifiable issues, and why you should not be expected to offer SOMETHING in terms of documentation to back up those two, so far, absolutely baseless assertions?
Also, I would really love to hear your explanation of how a law that makes some abortions illegal, doesn’t prevent any abortions.
The first example that I’m aware of that did exactly what I say - define the child in the womb as a person, and then codify permission for the abortionists to kill them - was the 2003 Prenatal Protection Act, which was passed by a “pro-life” Republican Texas legislature, and signed into “law” by a “pro-life” Republican Governor, Rick Perry.
The Texas Penal Code §1.07, says that a “person” “means an individual, corporation, or association.” (§1.07.38) An “individual” “means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.” (§1.07.26)
Chapter 19 of the Texas Code deals with criminal homicide. Texas Penal Code §19.02 clearly states that a person commits the offense of murder if he “intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual.”
Sadly, that same act also created Texas Penal Code §19.06, which states that:
This chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is:
(1) conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child;
(2) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure;
In 2005, a “pro-life” majority in Congress did almost exactly the same thing in passing the “Lacey Peterson Law.” And a “pro-life” president, George W. Bush, signed it into “law.” Go look it up in the U.S. Code and you’ll see that I’m correct.
All of these “fetal pain” and “heartbeat” bills that are being pushed by the “pro-life” industry types are cut from exactly the same immoral, unconstitutional cloth.
They are the codification of permission to kill innocent persons.
The U.S. Constitution:
“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”
“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
There are others. You can check the “heartbeat” bills like the one pushed in Ohio. They’re pretty much the same. They define the child in the womb as a person, and then allow certain disfavored classes of those persons to be killed by the abortionists.
The usual definition they use is: “”Unborn child” or “fetus” means an individual organism of the species homo-sapiens, from fertilization until live birth.”
At this point, I have to ask you, would a “law” that allowed the murder of paraplegics, based on the fact that they wouldn’t feel a thing, be moral or constitutional?
Do you think it would be okay to kill Grandma if you gave her enough morphine? After all, she wouldn’t feel any pain, right?
If you say NO, that wouldn’t be moral or constitutional, please explain to me the difference between the child in utero and the paraplegic or elderly person. Be specific.
Absolutely evasive! Show me where the legislation the current candidates have promised to support does what you say... not some law from Texas... specifically the one that YOU SAY procludes you from supporting any Republican candidate because they promised to advance it and it "defines babes in the womb as persons, and then allows them to be killed".
"Go look it up in the U.S. Code and you’ll see that I’m correct."
Don't tell me search for the evidence to back up your unsupported claims. If it's there and so easy to find it then YOU should find it, quote it, and reference the URL. By your own example it should take you all of ten seconds.
YOU STILL HAVE YET TO DEMONSTRATE the very foundation of your assertion, namely that the legislation defines ANYTHING, much less that it “allows” killing of the “persons” that it’s defined.
Can you show me where in this legislation (1) ANYTHING is defined, and where or how it (2) “Allows the killing” of those defined as Persons?
Further, can you explain to me how YOUR ENTIRE POSITION on this matter does not “turn on” those two objectively verifiable issues, and why you should not be expected to offer SOMETHING in terms of documentation to back up those two, so far, absolutely baseless assertions?
Also, I would really love to hear your explanation of how a law that makes some abortions illegal, doesn’t prevent any abortions.
I’ve pointed you to all of the right places to learn for yourself that what I’ve been saying all along is accurate. But I can’t make you read or think. You’ll have to do that for yourself.
By the way, when officials with the Susan B. Anthony List were questioned about the exact wording of the “Pain Capable” legislation the Republican candidates had signed off on, they said they didn’t have any. But whatever it would be would be modeled after the Nebraska “fetal pain” legislation, which I linked for you above. And which, again, defines the child in the womb as a human person, but allows certain classes of those persons to be killed by the abortionists.
http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/unconstitutionally-pro-life/
“Both SBA List and Operation Rescue confirmed to The Iowa Republican (TIR) that the federal Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act does not yet exist. Steve Valentine, the interim Legislative Outreach Director at SBA List, told TIR that they did not have any model legislation publicly available, but that the bill would roughly follow the fetal pain legislation passed by Nebraska in 2010.”
Nebraska: I fail to find where this law meets your criteria, namely, defining “person”, and consequently “allow the killing” of those so defined.
Virginia: I fail to find where this law meets your criteria, namely, defining “person”, and consequently “allow the killing” of those so defined.
Oklahoma: I fail to find where this law meets your criteria, namely, defining “person”, and consequently “allow the killing” of those so defined.
Idaho: I fail to find where this law meets your criteria, namely, defining “person”, and consequently “allow the killing” of those so defined.
Very strange.
I'm reading it again, for the hundredth time, and everything I've been saying is right there. They repeatedly call the being we're talking about an "unborn child." They talk of "gestational age." Of the unborn child. They say "Unborn child or fetus each mean an individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth..." And then they allow the abortionists to kill those not blessed with meeting their arbitrary, immoral, unconstitutional criteria for protection by the laws.
Let me ask you again, but rephrase:
Do you think it would be moral, or legal, or constitutional to pass laws which said you could put a forty-five slug in the heart of a paraplegic? After all, they wouldn’t feel a thing!
Do you think it would be moral, or legal, or constitutional to pass laws which said you could bludgeon Grandma to death if you had given her enough morphine first. After all, they wouldn’t feel a thing!
Right?
1. Do you believe that an unborn baby is a person? YES or NO
2. Do you believe that it is constitutional to enact a law that permits the killing of an innocent person? YES or NO
3. Do you believe that it is constitutional to enact a law that defines a person as a "non-person"? YES or NO
New tagline ...
Which brings us back to me asking you this:
Have you even read what they promised to advance and sign?
EVERY RESPONSE YOU HAVE MADE TO ME SINCE I ORIGINALLY ASKED YOU THIS QUESTION HAS BEEN AN EXERCISE IN DECEPTIVE EVASION.
If you haven't read it, is it even possible for you to make the claims you you have regarding what it defines, what it allows, and what it would prevent?
"They don't prevent any abortions. That's one of the fatal flaw in your assumptions.
It seems to me it is YOUR assumption that they don't. It also seems to me that the only fatal flaw in this discussion is in your logic. Somehow you've equated codifying the protection of some-but-not-all unborn with "codifying the killing" of others. That is INSANELY distorted.
But whatever it would be would be modeled after the Nebraska “fetal pain” legislation, which I linked for you above. And which, again, defines the child in the womb as a human person, but allows certain classes of those persons to be killed by the abortionists.
The term "person" is not defined as you claim.
Okay. It’s obvious you don’t want to know the truth of this matter.
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.