Tag Archives: Right to life

Pro-lifers should be thrilled that Bachmann is running for President

In theory, real feminists should be thrilled that Michele Bachmann is running for President.   She has been successful in business and in politics and by all accounts is a terrific mother and extremely generous person. But the pro-choicers and the faux-lifers will hate her for this.  How dare she mention the Declaration of Independence?!   How dare she mention negative rights (i.e., the right to be protected from being destroyed just because you are unwanted)?!

Via Pro-Life Rep. Michele Bachmann Joins GOP Presidential Field | LifeNews.com:

During the debate, Bachmann defended her pro-life views and talked about the foster children she’s adopted.

“I am 100 percent pro-life. I’ve given birth to five babies, and I’ve taken 23 foster children into my home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I believe in the sanctity of human life,” Bachmann said.

“And I think the most eloquent words ever written were those in our Declaration of Independence that said it’s a creator who endowed us with inalienable rights given to us from God, not from government. And the beauty of that is that government cannot take those rights away. Only God can give, and only God can take,” she continued. “And the first of those rights is life. And I stand for that right. I stand for the right to life. The very few cases that deal with those exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases, and yet they get all the attention. Where all of the firepower is and where the real battle is, is on the general — genuine issue of taking an innocent human life. I stand for life from conception until natural death.”

I love it when candidates speak clearly, especially on such an important topic.  She didn’t try to water things down.

And while the “pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born” canard is easy to refute, her track record of caring for so many foster children serves as a “prebuttal” to the pro-legalized abortionists.

I’m glad she is running, and I would love to see her win or at least get the VP nod.

Hat tip: Jill Stanek

Pro-lifers split on Ohio’s “Heartbeat Bill”

Via News from The Associated Press COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A state House committee on Wednesday narrowly approved a bill that would impose the strictest abortion limit in the nation, outlawing the procedure at the first detectable fetal heartbeat.

The Health Committee voted 12-11 to approve the so-called Heartbeat Bill. The bill would need to be approved by the House, where its future is uncertain.

Supporters led by Janet Folger Porter, the director of the Faith2Action network of pro-family groups and a former legislative director of the anti-abortion group Ohio Right to Life, have hoped aloud that the bill sparks a legal challenge to the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion.

Interestingly, not all pro-lifers support this:

But Porter doesn’t have the support of Ohio Right to Life, which fears the legal challenge she seeks could jeopardize other abortion limits in Ohio and expand access to legal abortions.

“As drafted, our position has been very clear. This bill had numerous negative consequences and unintended consequences,” said Ohio Right to Life executive director Mike Gonadakis. “It’s the right idea at the wrong time. Timing’s everything in the pro-life movement.”

Gonadakis said an unsuccessful court challenge that makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court could end up overturning Ohio’s informed consent law, which mandates that a physician must meet with a woman seeking an abortion at least 24 hours before the procedure and that the woman must be given certain information and sign a consent form. He said the group has consulted its lawyers and will continue to share their thoughts with House members in hopes of blocking a vote by the full chamber.

One thing we do know is that the pro-legalized abortionists flunk the basic biology question yet again (emphasis added):

NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio executive director Kellie Copeland blasted those who backed the heartbeat measure in Wednesday’s vote.

“This just shows this committee doesn’t give a damn about the reproductive rights of Ohio women nor does it trust them to make their own decisions,” Copeland said. “And I would encourage everyone who cares about women’s reproductive health care to remember this the next time they go to the polls.”

News flash for Ms. Copeland: Women who seek abortions have already reproduced. It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from conception.  The question is whether those human beings should have a right to life.  Sound bites about trusting women to make their own decisions don’t apply to human beings outside the womb, so why does the location make it permissible to kill the unborn?

Worst pro-legalized abortion argument ever: The unborn are parasites!

Some pro-legalized abortions take the view that technically speaking the unborn are parasites and that they are fair game for destruction because they are dependent on the mother and consume some of her resources.  As weird as that argument is I actually like when they present it.  I think that middle grounders will immediately realize what a horribly wrong attempt it is to de-humanize the unborn.

A commenter on another blog wrote this as a defense:

What that means is, if you give someone permission to touch your body, that permission can be withdrawn at any time

Here’s a good question to pose to those advancing the parasite argument:

As transparently deficient as the parasite argument is (two humans don’t create a non-human parasite that later becomes a human), when do you propose that abortions be illegal, if ever?

Please answer this with a yes/no: If a baby has been delivered but the umbilical cord has not been cut — i.e., that awful, awful parasite of “unknown” origin is still greedily sucking nutrients from the defenseless mother — is it OK to kill the baby?

Do you know of any other parasites that change into humans?

Previous informaton on the parasite argument

As usual, pro-life apologist extraordinaire Theobromophile provided an excellent response (emphasis added).  This one is a keeper to use when you see this argument pop up at other sites.

By that line of reasoning, a woman would be totally justified in killing her baby a day before its due date.

That absurdity aside, their analysis fails (at least legally, if not morally). While you are never responsible for keeping someone else alive, you are responsible for doing so if you created the situation in which they are dependent upon you. The classic example is a person who is drowning in the ocean. You, as a boater with a life preserver, are under no obligation to help them out of the water. If, however, you were the one who chucked her overboard, then watched her drown, you can bet that a jury would convict your immoral butt for murder, not for ruining her clothes by getting her wet.

Likewise, you are under no obligation to give a dying person a kidney to save his life, but, if you ripped his kidneys out of his body, you would be charged with murder if he died from those injuries. If the only way to avoid his death is to give him your kidneys, you can bet that your options are to fork over an organ or be charged with murder.

Just saying.