zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.

Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Welcome to Cut to the Chase. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


Pages: (3) [1] 2 3  ( Go to first unread post )

 Abortion/Right to life
Chin
Posted: Feb 23 2007, 10:48 AM


Hammer of Allah


Group: Admin
Posts: 696
Member No.: 1
Joined: 8-December 06



We'll be taking Hunter's principles and breaking them down over next months. I'm hoping to post it to the blog on Monday. But I figured I get it put up here for some discussion over the weekend.
_______________________________________________________________________
Abortion/Life

1. Right to Life Amendment:

I would amend the U.S. Constitution and provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception by prohibiting any state or federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn. Likewise, I have also introduced the Right to Life Act, which would legally define “personhood” as the moment of conception and, therefore, guarantee all constitutional rights and protections, including life, to the unborn without utilizing a constitutional amendment.

2. Federal laws relating to abortion and human life protections (e.g, embryonic research and end of life, etc.):

There are several areas of federal law that require human life protections. I have cosponsored the following pieces of legislation:

*
The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which would amend the federal criminal code to prohibit transporting a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion, if this action circumvents the minor's native state's parental involvement law. I voted in favor of this bill when it passed the House 270-157 on April 27, 2005.
*
The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2005, which would prohibit and criminalize efforts at reproductive cloning.
*
The Parent's Right to Know Act of 2005, which would prohibit federal funding to carry out federal family planning programs in which service providers in the project knowingly provides contraceptive drugs or devices to a minor, except in specific circumstances.
*
The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006, which would require abortion providers to notify women who want to have an abortion 20 weeks after fertilization that the evidence suggests their unborn child feels pain and they may request anesthesia for their unborn child in order to reduce or eliminate the pain.

I have also supported human life protection efforts with the following votes:

*
I supported the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, banning the practice of fetal farming, the creation of embryos specifically for the purposes of scientific research.
*
I voted in favor of the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, which would direct federal funding to stem-cell research that does not rely on embryos.
*
I voted against the Stem-Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which would have directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem-cells, regardless of the date on which the stem-cells were derived from a human embryo.
*
I voted against amendments offered to the National Defense Authorization Act permitting taxpayer funded military facilities overseas to be used to support abortions on demand for military women and military dependents.
*
I voted against amendments providing UN funding to groups that support coercive abortion programs.
Top
cynic314
Posted: Feb 23 2007, 12:56 PM


Supporter


Group: Members
Posts: 317
Member No.: 8
Joined: 5-February 07



First thing here as a caveat. I've never voted for or against a person based on abortion stance, but this, IMO is pushing it a little too far:
QUOTE
I voted against amendments offered to the National Defense Authorization Act permitting taxpayer funded military facilities overseas to be used to support abortions on demand for military women and military dependents.

Is he trying to mandate that military members live as second class citizens? Military members and their families are offered medical treatment from military doctors. As long as abortion is legal in the US, banning the ability to seek "treatment" from military docs is just wrong. Cart before the horse and all that jibe.

Serious question since the topic of abortion is up today. One which I have looked up and think that I know the answer but am not 100%.

A fetus has different DNA than the mother, right?

Assuming that is answered in the affirmative, then how, in this age of DNA evidence on everything do we still treat a fetus as nothing more than an appendage?
Top
Chin
Posted: Feb 23 2007, 03:38 PM


Hammer of Allah


Group: Admin
Posts: 696
Member No.: 1
Joined: 8-December 06



to my knowledge, yes. Even twins have unique DNA as fetuses.
Top
cynic314
Posted: Feb 23 2007, 03:55 PM


Supporter


Group: Members
Posts: 317
Member No.: 8
Joined: 5-February 07



QUOTE (Chin @ Feb 23 2007, 03:38 PM)
to my knowledge, yes. Even twins have unique DNA as fetuses.

So, by extension, why are fetuses given zero rights? Should not the fact that they are human and their own human entitle them to the same inalienable rights of you and I?
Top
Chin
Posted: Feb 23 2007, 04:09 PM


Hammer of Allah


Group: Admin
Posts: 696
Member No.: 1
Joined: 8-December 06



That is kinda my point. I agree with you on the cart before the horse thing. But there is a certain amount of hypocrisy that Duncan seems to address.
Top
reddogrw
Posted: Feb 23 2007, 04:48 PM


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 69
Member No.: 13
Joined: 17-February 07



I think banning abortion would be a huge mistake for the US. While personally against abortion, I have also never been put in the position of having an unwanted child on the way.

Making abortion illegal would just further divide the haves and have nots in this country.

The middle class on up could (and would) easily travel to Canada to have the procedure done while the poor would be stuck with the back-alley abortion method.

Both sides of this equation need to work on prevention and education as even those who believe in abortion will concede it's still better to not have an operation as opposed to having the abortion from a health perspective.
Top
reddogrw
Posted: Feb 23 2007, 04:50 PM


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 69
Member No.: 13
Joined: 17-February 07



QUOTE (Chin @ Feb 23 2007, 04:09 PM)
That is kinda my point. I agree with you on the cart before the horse thing. But there is a certain amount of hypocrisy that Duncan seems to address.

having abortion be legal and providing taxpayer funding for it are two different things

you don't have to refuse to allow military personnel abortions, just make them pay for it themselves
Top
Chin
Posted: Feb 23 2007, 07:38 PM


Hammer of Allah


Group: Admin
Posts: 696
Member No.: 1
Joined: 8-December 06



Red,

While I share some of your concerns, the overarching issue for me is one of fairness and equal protection under the law. If those imbalances aren't address, de-facto protected and preferred groups, practices and actions are created, intentionally or not.

For as often as the left likes to scream Big Brother, this screams "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Top
reddogrw
Posted: Feb 23 2007, 07:46 PM


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 69
Member No.: 13
Joined: 17-February 07



QUOTE (Chin @ Feb 23 2007, 07:38 PM)
Red,

While I share some of your concerns, the overarching issue for me is one of fairness and equal protection under the law. If those imbalances aren't address, de-facto protected and preferred groups, practices and actions are created, intentionally or not.

For as often as the left likes to scream Big Brother, this screams "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

um - you have lost me

which post were you responding to?

which group is not being treated equal?
Top
Chin
Posted: Feb 23 2007, 08:42 PM


Hammer of Allah


Group: Admin
Posts: 696
Member No.: 1
Joined: 8-December 06



In the case of a pregnancy, you have 3 parties. This assumes we are agreed that an in vitro fetus, having unique DNA, is a unique person. Which, IMO, it is.

Under current law, one party has sole decision making power. The mother can choose to terminate a unique life form. This is only by virtue of being that life form's host. An unavoidable fact of human biology.

The life from has no legal standing in the decision. The father (1/2 of the lifeforms genetic code) has no legal standing in the matter. So, the mother becomes a protected class under the law. She, as a minority opinion, has been afforded veto power. The other parties rights do not receive equal protection under the law.

The father cannot petition any court to force the mother to carry to term. Even if he accepts full legal responsibility and absolves the mother of same after birth. There is no mechanism by which a court can appoint a guardian ad lietum on behalf of the child to ensure it's rights are protected (because under current law, it has none).

The irony is that is the father kills the mother, and thus the life form, he can be convicted of double murder in may jurisdictions. So he is penalized for taking the life of an unborn child. But he is provided no legal way to protect it. Only the mother can kill a child.

Hopefully, that helps clarify.
Top
reddogrw
Posted: Feb 23 2007, 08:53 PM


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 69
Member No.: 13
Joined: 17-February 07



QUOTE (Chin @ Feb 23 2007, 08:42 PM)
In the case of a pregnancy, you have 3 parties. This assumes we are agreed that an in vitro fetus, having unique DNA, is a unique person. Which, IMO, it is.

Under current law, one party has sole decision making power. The mother can choose to terminate a unique life form. This is only by virtue of being that life form's host. An unavoidable fact of human biology.

The life from has no legal standing in the decision. The father (1/2 of the lifeforms genetic code) has no legal standing in the matter. So, the mother becomes a protected class under the law. She, as a minority opinion, has been afforded veto power. The other parties rights do not receive equal protection under the law.

The father cannot petition any court to force the mother to carry to term. Even if he accepts full legal responsibility and absolves the mother of same after birth. There is no mechanism by which a court can appoint a guardian ad lietum on behalf of the child to ensure it's rights are protected (because under current law, it has none).

The irony is that is the father kills the mother, and thus the life form, he can be convicted of double murder in may jurisdictions. So he is penalized for taking the life of an unborn child. But he is provided no legal way to protect it. Only the mother can kill a child.

Hopefully, that helps clarify.

It does, but even if you address ALL that, all the mother has to do here is drive 40 minutes to Canada and have an abortion and the entire point is mute, as US law will no longer apply.

So making US laws to take the decision out of the mother's hands when all she has to do is go across the border and do as she pleases only affects those that cannot afford to pay for the procedure out of their own pocket across the border.

Top
Chin
Posted: Feb 23 2007, 10:05 PM


Hammer of Allah


Group: Admin
Posts: 696
Member No.: 1
Joined: 8-December 06



Not in my view. My genetic material is my property. If you transport my property out of the country and alter or destroy it without my written consent, You have usurped my right to equal protection under the law and are subject to criminal and civil penalties.

In my opinion, this is where the pro-life lobby is dropping the ball. They continue to fight to try to prove the rights of the life form. These are valid, IMO. But the pro-choice lobby continues to argue that it is not actually a life form. So, in my mind, the argument then becomes, what is it? If the argument is that it is simply a mass of cells, then fine. It is a mass of cells that is comprised partially of my genetic material, which is my property. The police cannot even collect my genetic material without my consent or a warrant. So my ownership of it has already been established under the law.

So, with ownership precedent established of my genetic material, certain rights are conveyed to me. those rights are currently usurped under Roe v. Wade.

So, you see, it's a rock and a hard place. (1) If it's a life, it has rights. (2) If it is only matter, or a thing, both contributors have rights under property and privacy law.

This is how Roe v. Wade will be overturned, IMO.
Top
reddogrw
Posted: Feb 23 2007, 10:09 PM


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 69
Member No.: 13
Joined: 17-February 07



QUOTE (Chin @ Feb 23 2007, 10:05 PM)
Not in my view. My genetic material is my property. If you transport my property out of the country and alter or destroy it without my written consent, You have usurped my right to equal protection under the law and are subject to criminal and civil penalties.

In my opinion, this is where the pro-life lobby is dropping the ball. They continue to fight to try to prove the rights of the life form. These are valid, IMO. But the pro-choice lobby continues to argue that it is not actually a life form. So, in my mind, the argument then becomes, what is it? If the argument is that it is simply a mass of cells, then fine. It is a mass of cells that is comprised partially of my genetic material, which is my property. The police cannot even collect my genetic material without my consent or a warrant. So my ownership of it has already been established under the law.

So, with ownership precedent established of my genetic material, certain rights are conveyed to me. those rights are currently usurped under Roe v. Wade.

So, you see, it's a rock and a hard place. (1) If it's a life, it has rights. (2) If it is only matter, or a thing, both contributors have rights under property and privacy law.

This is how Roe v. Wade will be overturned, IMO.

BUT

If you take it out of the country and destroy it in that country where it is legal do you have a leg to stand on?

How do you even know the women was pregnant?

What are you going to do, give every woman that crosses the border a pregnancy test?

Top
Chin
Posted: Feb 23 2007, 10:30 PM


Hammer of Allah


Group: Admin
Posts: 696
Member No.: 1
Joined: 8-December 06



I understand it isn't fool proof. The point is that it provides penalties for unilateral decisions. Not every town is 40 minutes from Canada.

And most certainly the aggrieved parties would have a leg to stand on. Just th e same as if you took a car titled in both our names, drove it to Canada without my consent and willfully caught it on fire.

Would some women go to Canada and/or have illegal abortions? Sure.

Would the majority of those be earlier term pregnancies because the 'evidence' would not yet be 'evident'? Sure.Which is much safer for the mother anyway.

Will we ever abolish abortion as a practice? No. we never have.

Will my model more accurately and equally represent the rights of the parties while still respecting the rights of the mother, in proportion to her role? Yes.

Top
reddogrw
Posted: Feb 24 2007, 12:51 PM


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 69
Member No.: 13
Joined: 17-February 07



QUOTE (Chin @ Feb 23 2007, 10:05 PM)
Not in my view. My genetic material is my property. If you transport my property out of the country and alter or destroy it without my written consent, You have usurped my right to equal protection under the law and are subject to criminal and civil penalties.

In my opinion, this is where the pro-life lobby is dropping the ball. They continue to fight to try to prove the rights of the life form. These are valid, IMO. But the pro-choice lobby continues to argue that it is not actually a life form. So, in my mind, the argument then becomes, what is it? If the argument is that it is simply a mass of cells, then fine. It is a mass of cells that is comprised partially of my genetic material, which is my property. The police cannot even collect my genetic material without my consent or a warrant. So my ownership of it has already been established under the law.

So, with ownership precedent established of my genetic material, certain rights are conveyed to me. those rights are currently usurped under Roe v. Wade.

So, you see, it's a rock and a hard place. (1) If it's a life, it has rights. (2) If it is only matter, or a thing, both contributors have rights under property and privacy law.

This is how Roe v. Wade will be overturned, IMO.

I am not sure the property argument works

Once you give your property to her (willingly), it is like any other gift and you retain no ownership rights to it.

You know going into the arrangement what the situation is, so the argument probably carries little weight
Top
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic OptionsPages: (3) [1] 2 3 



Skin by 2crazie of IF Skin Zone @ IFSkinzone.net
And also of BurningDesigns @ z7.invisionfree.com/burningdesigns

Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.3784 seconds · Archive
PolitiPoll.net - Political Web Rankings Politics Blogs
Politics Blogs Politics blogs Top Blogs Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites http://s31.sitemeter.com/meter.asp?site=s31houseofchin