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 9:08 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 2, 2011 at 9:12 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 2, 2011 at 9:18 pm
Jacqueline –
Again, you are not responding to what I said, and you try to change the topic.
It's clear on the other points that you're going to dismiss my opinions as the hysterical emotional ravings of an illogical female, so there's no point.
Emotional appeal, again.
If it was original, I'd give extra points for trying to claim that it's because you're a female, and using a foolish old stereotype that feeds into to your actual actions.
Might work better if I were male, though, and it hadn't been over used for the last half century or so.
Other people's fetuses are neither convenient nor inconvenient to ME.
On the contrary; it must be legal to kill all fetuses if you are going to keep your ability to kill your own unborn, should they get in the way. Thus, it is a matter of convenience.
I don't see how it affects YOU in any way, other than emotional.
A similar claim could be made of any laws objecting to the slaughter of a class of human one does not belong to; the legalized slaughter of humans, coupled with the dehumanization of a group of humans, is very much my concern.
You may as well try to claim that no white had any reason to oppose slavery, since they were not personally harmed by the forced work, rape and murder of a slave.
March 2, 2011 at 9:20 pm
They were probably caught by the spam filter.
March 2, 2011 at 9:21 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 2, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Again, you try to change the subject.
Again, you are making false claims.
Again, I tell you: all humans are people.
March 2, 2011 at 9:27 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 2, 2011 at 9:35 pm
You attempt to change the subject to it not being "my business" why you would choose to kill your child, away from the topic of why it is for your convenience that women must be able to end a human life that is in their way.
You mischaracterized my own arguments and interest, you mischaracterized the views of those above who are opposed to death-for-ease.
You flatly lied in claiming "though you never told me how far that extends".
Again, I tell you: a fertilized egg that has a 50-70% chance of being miscarried naturally is not a person, any more than an acorn is an oak tree.
All humans have a 100% chance of death, yet they are still human persons.
"Fertilized egg" is not a stage of human development, although it is a stage in a chicken's development, if only in slang. Perhaps you mean zygote?
March 2, 2011 at 9:43 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 2, 2011 at 9:47 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 2, 2011 at 9:50 pm
I have no idea why you think I mischaracterized anyone. I quoted them, and then added my own thoughts.
No, you did not.
Simplest proof, you did not "quote" anyone.
Yes, I mean zygote. Human fertilization involves a sperm fertilizing an egg, so my term may not be medically common but it is not inaccurate.
It is incredibly inaccurate, as well as misleading. Neither egg nor sperm cell exist after fertilization.
All organisms have a 100% chance of death, but that doesn't make all organisms persons.
Not all organisms are human.
March 2, 2011 at 9:51 pm
I am not going to give you a basic biology course– if you can't tell the difference between an organism and a tissue sample, perhaps you should rethink your self-appointed role of deciding what humans are non-persons.
March 2, 2011 at 9:53 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 2, 2011 at 9:55 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 2, 2011 at 9:57 pm
That is way back when I pointed out you were making non sequiturs, not when you–immediately above my response– attempted to mischaracterize myself and the entire thread.
March 2, 2011 at 10:01 pm
I thought you'd left when you realized nobody was dancing to your desires; why did you come back and ask yet another form of a question that I already answered several times? (that is a rhetorical question, by the way)
The answer won't change.
March 2, 2011 at 10:02 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 2, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Is a freshly fertilized ovum, more correctly called a zygote, equivalent to a person with all rights and protections under our laws?
Now this is a new question– why are you changing the topic to existing laws?
I thought you left when you realized you can't bully us into agreeing that killing small humans is just fine, if the mother wants to do it?
March 2, 2011 at 10:04 pm
You terms are still not correct, by the way, even when you use the correct medical term for the human egg.
Saying it over and over doesn't make it true.
March 2, 2011 at 10:07 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.