Patriot Retort: After Alabama declared itself a Sanctuary State for the Unborn, a few conservative writers sent up flares saying Alabama had overstepped (like this column from David Harsanyi at the Federalist).
The law goes too far, so the argument goes. And the pushback from the Left will hurt the pro-life movement.
But I don’t see it that way.
Now if we were dealing with sane people, I would agree with Harsanyi’s assessment.
But the Democrats are not sane people. These are the folks who set their hair on fire over every little thing.
It’s why President Trump can so easily bait them into acting like idiots by simply tweeting.
And I know these Democrats. They always overreact. And they always push too hard and too far.
Yes, the Alabama pro-life legislation is probably the strictest to come down the pike since Roe v Wade. I agree with that assessment.
But the way I see it, the Alabama law is a baited hook – dangling there waiting for the overreacting Democrats to pounce.
And like the insane idiots that they are, the Democrats took the bait.
Only 13% of Americans believe abortion should be unrestricted. The vast majority of Americans think there should be at least some limits on abortion – for example, banning third-trimester abortions.
If these Democrats were smart, they would have tempered their responses to the Alabama law – keeping in mind that the vast majority of Americans do expect some limits.
But they didn’t.
Instead, Democrats took the bait.
Like the overacting hysterics they are, the Democrats running for President are now calling for a Federal law that overturns state laws and protects abortion on demand with no restrictions. more here
Don’t know about baiting exactly, but it is common knowledge Alabama wrote that Bill with the express purpose of getting it in front of the Supreme Court.
Mayor Pete went one better and took the queer bait. But not to be outdone, rumor has it Bill(Cigar)Clinton went island hopping and took the jail bait. Nadler ate the bait.
You are a preserver and protector of innocent life or you are not.
There is no “going too far”.
“Conservatives” opining otherwise have my deepest contempt.
This law has been in the works here for a couple of years (not a reaction to Northam) and the aim was to make it a “clean” bill, which they did and it was written by a woman. IF it ultimately gets to the Supreme Court, they want a ruling on when life begins. If the exceptions of rape and incest had been in the bill, then the justices could have said that not ALL lives matter. Those exceptions can be put into the bill after the Supreme Court ruling. We know that it will be overturned in the 11th Circuit Court and then we pray that the SC will take it up. BTW, the demonrats did show themselves in their true nature. Just look at the one example of Jim Carrey and his drawing of our Governor “being aborted.” He certainly showed that abortion is vile in that one painting. Please pray and I know it will be a long haul. Sorry this is so long but it is important. We are not dumb hicks here.
A few days ago there was a post here about Eric Erickson, a staunchly pro-life advocate who dared qualified his bonfides with a “rape” exception. As expected, he was taken to the woodshed here and summarily thrashed for advocating any exception to the pro-life argument.
Yesterday Trump weighed in with this;
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/19/donald-trump-abortion-twitter-1332803
“President Donald Trump on Saturday night indirectly addressed the nation’s recent spate of new abortion legislation, saying he was “strongly pro-life.”
“As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions — Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother — the same position taken by Ronald Reagan,” the president wrote on Twitter.”
It seems that Erickson is more pro-life than our president, just sayin’
I’m sorry, but WE took the bait.
Dems had no issues. So they went hogwild in Virginia, New York, etc. proposing unrestricted abortion rights. And what did we do? Respond in other states with very restrictive abortion laws.
Now the Dems have screaming issues to motivate their “base” six ways from Sunday, not only on abortion but on the courts and health care.
Alabama’s law isn’t going to go to the Supreme Court. It’s going to get knocked down in the lower courts and those rulings will be let stand — because the Supreme Court has other things to do.
I’m just disgusted with how this issue is handled on BOTH sides. Heartbeats? Ohforpetessake slugs have “heart beats”. Why in hell are we also carrying on irrationally, instead of bringing out research on fetal pain, consciousness, etc. and chipping down in a way that “people in the middle” — the vast majority of Americans, could recognize as reasonable.
Nope. We had to shoot the entire wad, pointlessly and prematurely.
And, by the way, I for one DO NOT WANT courts making some kind of inane ruling on “when life begins”. Quite obviously — to everyone — life is there before even conception, and a fertilized egg is in fact a human being.
That’s NOT the issue of law. The issue of LAW is when does a zygote-embryo-fetus-baby become a legal PERSON. That’s a term of art. (Corporations are “persons” under the law, e.g.) When does a being have legal rights of personhood under the law.
Why couldn’t we simply have gone after the extremist third trimester bills for now instead of risking the whole ball of wax, both elections and court appointments.
Hey Janitor, comparing a damn slug to a human life is no different than a liberal calling a human life a clump of cells.
The life an innocent baby should have no place in politics and anyone more concerned with politics over doing the right thing and protecting the lives of babies are just as sorry piece of shits as liberals.
Each state should have their own laws regarding murder, any person who gives a shit about the Constitution would admit to that.
There is no middle ground anymore. You can’t reason with rabid lunatics.
O/T Happy Birthday to LocoBlancoSaltine! 😊🎂🎉
Janitor, you had me……….up until the point about slugs and hearts, slugs don’t have hearts.
From the original post;
“The vast majority of Americans think there should be at least some limits on abortion – for example, banning third-trimester abortions.”
And that is where the battle must be fought. This ,”eating our own” over qualifications like,”Except of cases of rape and incest” has to stop. The enemy are those that want unrestricted abortion on demand and even infanticide like that Virginia governor who likes to dress up in black face.
It’s possible the jackasses took the bait over the tax returns as well. It will be interesting how it plays out. Everyone in Congress, let’s see those tax returns, and let’s go all the way back until the year before you were elected. TRAITOROUS BASTARDS!!!
(Okay, slugs don’t have heartbeats. Mice, geckos, whatever. This is an irrelevancy.)
Why couldn’t we first have just moved forcefully on a sure thing to save third trimester babies. Maybe I’m not the rational one, given my boys were born at 32 weeks.
But the way I see it, you win no wars and save no one if the first battle you choose wipes you out. Yelling about injustice doesn’t do it. Neither does impatience or reacting indiscriminately. No matter how sincere or righteous.
We had this — we likely had an even better chance at the Supreme Court based on the New York, not Alabama law — and threw it away, legally and also for hearts and minds of voters.
Hook Line & Sinker!
@janitor – While I disagree with you on some points, the key question for the govt (and the courts in particular) is, indeed, as you say, about personhood. Courts decide legal issues, and personhood is a crucially important legality.
It is my own conclusion that once conceived, the baby’s stage of development in the womb is irrelevant: it is a person with the same rights and responsibilities as any other person.
Oh, on that side point about gastropoda, slugs have hearts, so I imagine they have heartbeats.
Hey janitor… The only “chance” we care about is the unborn child. It really is that simple.
not for rape, not for incest and only if the life of the mother is truly at stake otherwise pp will still be in business
Uncle Al, yes that was my point. The line drawing with “heartbeat”.
But Luvn, and others: “caring” doesn’t cut it for me. What’s this been? 45 years?!?!?!?!?!?!?! How’ve we done so far. Badly, and notwithstanding huge advances in the efficacy of birth control, scientific knowledge on the development of unborn babies that we are not using, no more stigmas for unwed mothers… and all feels to me like it’s going backwards.
I guess it feels like that classic ethics dilemma: there’s a kid run out in the road in front of you, but the only place you have to swerve means that you will run into a crowd. Or you’re a rescue swimmer and two people are drowning but you can only bring in one at a time and if you try immediately to bring in both at the same time you’re all going to drown.
I’m really frustrated.
Life starts at conception. That is where you defend from.
In determining when life begins, it might be a good idea to determine when it ends- what are the parameters for that determination? If something in absence determines death, then its presence must establish existence of life. Acceptance of that brief logic gets the argument to the ‘heartbeat stage.’ And it can be pushed beyond that.
Working in dementia/hospice, I sometimes have to pronounce death. One of the requirements to do so is listening for 2 continuous minutes for a heartbeat. Singular, irregular, or otherwise. No matter the diminished state, if there is a heartbeat, there is not the state of death.
Going with divine design. God created life at conception and actually I think God could care less what man thinks about when life begins.
Also, don’t be confused by a leftist tactic, disguised as compassion, using the heartbeat to determine when life begins is a slippery slope. Let’s just recognize the heart itself is formed early in embryo development – so is the brain and spine. Bones, skin and other organs are immediately developed during the embyrionic stages, yet some people play the game of waiting to “hear” or detecting a heartbeat to determine when life begins. Albeit, perfect way to determine when human life ends.
Well, life begins at the beginning when the egg is fertilized by the sperm. Humams are alive from zygote to full term – 9 months. Conservatives need to stop making this difficult. In particular, RINO dingbats Pat Robinson and Mittens Romney.
We can never go too far to protect life, even in cases of rape, incest and health if the mother. Abortion is diametrically opposed to life God has given.
Legal definitions of person-hood are the lamest avoidance of taking a stand for life. Even adults can be denied person-hood by legal means.
I’ll never agree it’s ok to take out a human for convenience no matter how many cells constitute making up their bodies.
Just because they’re tiny they don’t count?
It always becomes a human. Not a gecko or anything else.
Self-sustaining is the standard? Then it’s perfectly fine for anyone to take out kids all the way up to independent adulthood and any elderly in a care facility. What a vicious cold world is at the end of the path these standards, based on personal convenience, leads us to. Satan is pleased, I’m sure.
Life is a miracle directly from God. Celebrating each formation of a human should be the default position, IMO.
What an complete insult to the creator of the universe and yourself otherwise. He gave you a minimal intellect, now work on busting up that heart of stone. It’s possible.
Life begins at conception. Period.
If one doesn’t want to conceive, then one shouldn’t engage in behavior that results in a pregnancy. Easy peasy.
^^^ Excellent comments, 99th Squad Leader and Dadof4!
The heartbeat is too far along in the development of the human for it to be the benchmark of life. Once the human egg and the human sperm join, the process has begun. Life as a separate individual with a separate soul and spirit is achieved at that instant.
Edit: ^^^ and Odin 2013!
One way I put it sometimes when in face-to-face discussions on this topic:
When the egg and sperm combine, a DNA combination has been formed that has never existed before. That is an individual. Not just a clump of cells.
“I guess it feels like that classic ethics dilemma: ……
I’m really frustrated.”
You always pick the one with lesser threat to life, including your own. Like the closer drowning victim or one less likely to won’t drown you too in their panic.
Test yourself on a more basic ethical level.
Your beloved faithful dog of 5 years is drowning in a flood – right next to the neighbor who has been an a-hole those same 5 years constantly harassing you verbally, physically, even legally. A true pain in the ass you may have even wished would die at some point.
You only have room for one more in your lifeboat or you die from drowning also.
Whom do save?
The dog of course. I’m indifferent to most people on a good day (wait, did I type that out loud?)
Pro Life Legislation: Ban abortion when a heart beat is present.
Pro Abortion Demonrats: This law would prohibit abortion at 6 weeks.
People Who Were Told That Unborn Are Clump of Cells and Believed the Lie: An unborn baby has a heartbeat at 6 weeks!
I think the point of the law is, as Abby Johnson says, not to make abortion illegal, but to make it unthinkable.
@99th Squad Leader: “…Also, don’t be confused by a leftist tactic, disguised as compassion, using the heartbeat to determine when life begins is a slippery slope….”
I’m not confused, nor was I attempting to determine when life begins.
If absence of heartbeat is used to determine death, then the presence of heartbeat would necessarily determine life. That is the only point I was attempting to make.
An act of abortion, that causes the cessation of heartbeat, would therefore be the cause of death of a living being- in this case, a human being. This is easily understandable by the average person.
In my estimation, rolling back the currently surging creation of liberalized, ‘late term’ and ‘post birth’ abortion laws will not happen in one fell swoop. While the ‘beginning of life’ argument ensues, abortions continue. I would suggest that heels need to be dug in and ground gained and claimed. While it is not my ideal resolution of the overall problem, the establishment of heartbeat limitations sets limits that can then be furthered.
I too am in agreement that life begins at conception, when a unique individual is created, and I do not accept terminating that unique life at any point through abortion..
I think prohibitions due to heartbeat are easily arguable, and one would think that argument would prevail, gaining a reduction in the actual number of abortions performed, And certainly the fight for abolition of abortion should not stop at limitations due to heartbeat.
@Toby Miles, wasn’t actually directing my comments in response to yours, but lets talk. I get your point about the heartbeat being tangible evidence of life most people can relate to in order to have an understanding that human life exists in the womb. Agreed, you have to start somewhere to re-educate generations of people who disregard and are clueless about God’s definition of when human life begins, who are creating legislation that could help or hurt the unborn.
Still, the importance of conception is vital when considering the beginning of human life, because it becomes more difficult for those who support abortion to defend the murder of vulnerable, innocent and fragile human life developing in the womb and deny an embryo’s viability.
I think we agree on everything about this subject except the strategy on how to confront those who believe murdering children in the womb and/or after birth is a wonderful idea.
99th Squad Leader- I think we’re good. I just didn’t want to be misinterpreted as attempting to define the ‘beginning of life.’ I do agree that it is important in the abortion argument, but giving that exclusivity of focus might not be the best tact, to my mind. That debate has been going on for a long time, and will be kept that way, if the pro-abortionists have their way. I tend to favor a multi-faceted approach, while supporting all.
We’re on the same team, our approaches are just a little different. While I agree with ‘life beginning at conception,’ I also think it is important to gain what ground can be perhaps easily and quickly, comparatively speaking, taken. That is why I mentioned the heartbeat limitation. Sometimes a good way to begin a negotiation is to get the other party to agree to something/anything and work from there. There are very few in the medical world that would dispute the heartbeat/life association, and that agreement can be used to further limitation, as ‘beginning of life’ is hammered out. Sort of a ‘don’t put all your eggs in one basket’ approach, I guess.