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 10:08 pm
Again, I already answered this for all human organisms.
March 2, 2011 at 10:09 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 2, 2011 at 10:12 pm
Changing the topic again.
Amazing how far you go from a rather simple news story:
Fetal human to be youngest witness for abortion restriction law, via ultrasound.
March 2, 2011 at 10:13 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 2, 2011 at 10:16 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 2, 2011 at 10:22 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 2, 2011 at 10:23 pm
When you said: "Ah well, it doesn't matter too much– a tiny baby is a tiny baby. Those who can make themselves ignore it won't be swayed by an extra two or three weeks either way."
Is that how you answered me?
You had not shown up at that point, thus it cannot be an answer to you.
If you mean on humans being human persons, it's the same question you have rephrased and asked several times, and each time the answer was the same. I've even pointed out that I answered it again.
From the rest of your post– where you're trying to change the subject, again– you may want to look up the Catholic philosophy on pro-life subjects.
I'd hate to try to have a conversation with you in person, if you're so averse to discussing other aspects of a subject, or even (good gracious!) changing the subject somewhat.
Nice try at a personal attack…which might work, if I didn't have a long list of evidence for why it is so important to refuse to go along with an antagonist in a discussion when they wish to change the subject.
If you can't use emotion, lies, mischaracterizations, slander, accusations, misquotes and then change the subject when things don't go your way, you are unable to support your position. When you finally do admit your position– that you are willing to define some humans as non-persons– you do not defend it with anything but more of the same.
You can't even manage to stick to calling it quits when you realize that someone is not going to let you have control.
March 2, 2011 at 10:24 pm
I really am done now. Feel free to have the last word.
So gracious.
*puts on green plastic visor, vest and one of those funky arm-garters that bookies always have in the movies*
Opening odds are cheerios to fruit bowls against; any takers?