An unborn child is going to take the stand as a witness to testify on behalf of a bill in the Ohio legislature outlawing abortion after the first detectable heartbeat.
WJTV reports:
Faith2Action, the anti-abortion group that has targeted Ohio to pilot the measure, called the in-utero witness the youngest to ever come before the House Health Committee at nine weeks old.
Faith2Action president Janet Folger Porter said the intent is to show lawmakers who will be affected by the bill, which is opposed by Ohio Right to Life and abortion rights groups as unconstitutional.
An aide to committee Chairman Lynn Wachtmann said a pregnant woman will be brought before the committee and an ultrasound image of her uterus will be projected onto a screen. The heartbeat of the fetus will be visible in color.
Is it a stunt? Sure. But why not? Aren’t the unborn the ones who have the most to lose if this bill doesn’t get passed.
I don’t have great hope for this bill actually changing much in the short term but I like the idea of this bill in that it’s based on science but it’s science that everyone can relate to. Blobs of tissue don’t have beating hearts.
And as a rule I think the more we put the unborn front and center in this debate the better off we’ll be.
I especially like that so many states are passing pro-life legislation because it tells me that politicians, who are cowardly as a rule, aren’t as afraid of being pro-life anymore due to the shifting polls toward the pro-life position.
March 2, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Mouse didn't tell you how to feel, you're the one that's trying to argue that small humans that happen to be out of sight aren't really human. (Against science and reason, one might add.)
If they're not as human as a toddler, you are then trying to say that those who morn their unborn lost are wrong; if they are as human as a toddler, then you have some unstated yardstick about levels of wrong for human dismemberment for the ease of another person.
As usual, projection is going full time.
I'm not trolling, I'm disagreeing with you.
It's not the disagreement that I'm saying may be trolling, it's the non sequiturs, the opening with horrible misrepresentation of what the arguments are (which came out of nowhere), the emotional appeals, a high number of claims of personal wrongs and the shop-worn, irrational metaphors.
(An acorn is not an oak tree– true, but an acorn and an oak tree–as well as an oak sprout–are oaks, which is the accurate metaphor.)
March 2, 2011 at 6:38 pm
Jacqueline,
I never told you how to feel. I never told anyone how to feel. But, by insisting that every woman have the right to end every pregnancy whenever she chooses, you are denying that every or any pregnancy is valuable. If every pregnancy is a unique human being, then every time a pregnancy is lost, a human life is lost.
When a pro-"choice" person looks at a pregnant woman, unless her life is perfect, they see a woman with a problem with one quick, easy cure-all: abortion. That is what I took away from all your arguments, snark aside. And those abortions, according to you, should have terminated you and your siblings, thus alleviating the grief of your mother.
I don't think your mother would have made better decisions if she had terminated her pregnancies. You mentioned that she was involved in more than one violent relationship. Those patterns don't simply resolve themselves. The likelihood is that she would have been "free" to cycle between violent relationships faster, but they would still have been violent relationships.
When a pro-lifer looks at a pregnant woman, they see two people, possibly both with problems, but they want to fix the problems for both the mother and the child. If that means finding the mother a situation where she can keep her child, they will try to find that. If the mother doesn't want the child, they will find a situation where the child will be welcomed and loved. I've known several adopted children. All had families that were kind and loving to their children, including one family that would adopt the children no one else would take and raised them alongside their own biological children. All the children were equally precious to those parents.
Pro-lifers don't say you have to feel a certain way about a pregnancy. They just say termination a pregnancy is wrong. And they give reasons. It's really not about feelings.
Why is it wrong to think that every child should have the right to live? That has nothing to do with how you or any other woman feels about children or pregnancy. My child was small, but she was still a child and still precious. Your lost ones were still precious. Every child lost to abortion was precious.
Your mother blames you for her problems. What gives her the right to feel that way about you? How dare she blame the innocent victims of her actions?
And how dare you let her make you feel worthless? You are precious, too.
March 2, 2011 at 7:08 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 2, 2011 at 7:11 pm
I'm curious how you guys feel about these children who got pregnant?
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/04/19/mexico.abortion/index.html?hpt=T2
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-11/world/brazil.rape.abortion_1_excommunicated-abortion-innocent-life?_s=PM:WORLD
March 2, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Ah, the third tactic:
change the subject, or shifting ground.
Another point towards trolling.
There is a similar amount of uncertainty in human embryos and young fetuses, and I do not value them as much as the people who are already breathing and living their lives.
Young men die in far larger numbers than young women– is it thus more acceptable to kill them?
This or that genetic or economic group will die in larger numbers– is the willful killing of them thus not only allowable, but should be encouraged if it makes the life of someone not in that group easier?
I suppose you're "pro-choice" on killing old or sick folks, too– not to mention the genetically weak, since they all have a good chance of dying sooner than you.
You really don't get that it's not about emotion, it's about killing humans, do you?
March 2, 2011 at 7:30 pm
You really don't get that it's not about emotion, it's about killing humans, do you?
Considering that 99% of her arguments are based on emotional appeals, I wouldn't hold my breath anticipating a logical response.
March 2, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Paul-
Yeah, I know.
That said, even though the evidence points to just being yet another troll, I keep trying.
Cost is little, the incredibly unlikely payout is high– sort of like playing the penny slots.
March 2, 2011 at 8:01 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 2, 2011 at 8:04 pm
Either a pregnancy is precious and should be preserved, or it is not.
It's not rational to see it any other way.
Should your mother have terminated her pregnancies? Really?
March 2, 2011 at 8:07 pm
And Foxfier,
Thanks for the good wishes. It's been rough.
And it's really hard right now to think about the people who do that on purpose.
Thanks for fighting the good fight. I'm bowing out of this one.
March 2, 2011 at 8:10 pm
What I don't have a problem with is ending a life that hasn't started yet.
So you're not against birth control. Nobody is shocked, I think.
Has nothing to do with abortion, which ends a human life.
You might claim that some humans aren't people, as I previously said– but it's a historically very dark and flatly bad path to walk.
March 2, 2011 at 8:17 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 2, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Not every pregnancy is precious, and the pregnant woman is the best judge of that because it's her body and her life and her responsibility.
That's where you're wrong. It's not just her life– there is another human life involved.
Again, you try to change the subject, make emotional appeals and draw false equivalences, and show a shocking ignorance of basic science.
March 2, 2011 at 8:31 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 2, 2011 at 8:33 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 2, 2011 at 8:39 pm
I didn't change the subject. I'm just looking at it from a completely different angle than you are, and expanding it to ask about related issues. You're refusing to define the limits on what you think is a precious and/or sacred human life.
Yes, you did try to change the subject.
It's to be expected, you're trying to control the conversation. That is what your frequent emotional appeals, wild changes of topic, shifting grounds of argument and factually wrong claims boil down to– an attempt to control the conversation and make it have the outcome you desire, but cannot rationally defend.
I have not brought religion or relative value into the conversation– you have.
Repeatedly, I have pointed out that a fetal life is a human life, and thus must be considered a human person.
No woman deserves that "punishment" for having sex or being raped, and no child deserves to be a "punishment" for the woman having sex or being raped.
Saying "you may not kill this person who is in the way of your desires" is not a punishment.
A decision must be made from that point, because no one can go back in time.
The decision was already made.
There is now another human involved, one that is utterly innocent of any actions that might interfere with their preferred goals, put in that situation as a direct result of the choices of the parents.
March 2, 2011 at 8:43 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 2, 2011 at 8:51 pm
You say that a fetal life is a human life. I agree on the basic definition, but I still see a distinction between a fetus and a born human. I do not think a fetus should be considered a person.
Welcome to the proud tradition of defining those who are inconvenient to you as less than truly human; as this has no basis in scientific or rational thought, why on earth should any of the rest of us care what your personal views are on who is a real person?
Consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy and parenthood.
Irrational and not supported by the facts; you may as well try to claim accidental death when playing Russian Roulette, with the added moral issue of 1/3 of the group being an unwilling partner.
Engaging in an activity where the sole biological purpose is reproduction means accepting the not small risk that it will be successful.
March 2, 2011 at 8:54 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 2, 2011 at 8:55 pm
That reproduction is the only purpose of sex is absurd.
You misquote me and make a baseless claim.
Want to try again, or are you giving up?