Federal ‘Sanctity of Human Life Act’ Introduced In U.S. Congress

WASHINGTON — A Republican representative from Georgia has introduced a resolution that would recognize the unborn as being persons from the moment of conception.

Rep. Jody Hice, former pastor of Bethlehem First Baptist Church and The Summit Church, presented H.R. 586 days before the 44th year of Roe v. Wade, also known as the “Sanctity of Human Life Act.”

“[T]he Congress declares that—(A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and (B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood,” it reads in part.

The resolution also affirms that Congress and each state has the authority “to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.”

The Act has a number of co-sponsors, including Reps. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), Phil Roe, M.D. (R-Tenn.), Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) and Blake Farenthold (R-Texas).

Hice said in a statement on Tuesday that the resolution recognizes the inalienable right to life already outlined in the founding documents of the nation.

Hice

“In the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers affirmed that everyone is endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, chief among them being life,” he noted. “Today, with the right to life under attack, now more than ever before, we must stand up as advocates for the unborn. Our culture must affirm the value of the weak and vulnerable in our society, beginning with our children.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“With that in mind, I introduced the Sanctity of Human Life Act, which rightly defines life as beginning at conception,” Hice stated. “I am proud of this legislation and proud to be a voice for the unborn with clarity and conviction.”

As previously reported, just last week, the U.S. House of Representatives advanced the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act, which would place a permanent ban on taxpayer funding of abortions, as outlined in the Hyde Amendment.

The Act had been introduced by Rep. Chris Smith, R-New Jersey, a longtime supporter of the Amendment, which was first passed in 1976 to ban the use of Medicaid funds for abortion, with the exceptions of rape, incest and the life of the mother.

Smith

‘‘No funds authorized or appropriated by federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law, shall be expended for any abortion,” the No Taxpayer Funding Act reads in part.

‘‘None of the funds authorized or appropriated by federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion,” it outlines.

Hice voted in favor of the Act, remarking, “No American should ever be forced to pay for abortions. Period. The Hyde Amendment has been a staple of protecting the unborn for 40 years, saving more than two million lives, including 99,350 lives in the State of Georgia. Needless to say, it is vital that we keep it in place.”

Psalm 139:13-16 reads, “For Thou hast possessed my reins: Thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Marvellous are Thy works, and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from Thee when I was made in secret and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect, and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned when as yet there was none of them.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Praise the Lord!! Thank God!!

    • Oboehner

      The rest of the republicans will run from this just as they did when Ron Paul introduced legislation of this nature every year.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        It’s a never-ending attempt to awaken the human conscience in the entire world. Good Christians never give up to abolish barbarism and Sodomism and Nazism. The Lord rescues His children.

  • TheKingOfRhye

    If you agree with this or not, it would require overturning Roe v. Wade, wouldn’t it?

    • Amos Moses

      So what …….. this is not a judicial tyranny …….. it is a constitutional republic ….. we are not ruled by the courts ….. we rule the courts ……..

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Yes, a Constitutional republic. Meaning the Constitution governs all. And the Courts interpret the Constitution.

        • Amos Moses

          and unfortunately …. they are outside of it ………. they do not rely on it solely ….. and they make stuff up ………

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Well, if you feel that a decision was made in error, you’re certainly free to appeal it. But until you do, and it’s overturned, it’s still a decision and it’s still law.

          • Amos Moses

            blah, blah, woof, woof ………

          • Oboehner

            They can decide all they want, it is an opinion, not the law of the land. If it were we would have an Oligarchy not a Constitutional Republic.

        • Oboehner

          The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
          under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties
          made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases
          affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases
          of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the
          United States shall be a Party;– to Controversies between two or more States;–between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. – Article 3, Section 2
          No mention of “interpreting the Constitution” That is something they bestowed upon themselves – hardly constitutional.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            That’s because you disingenuously stopped quoting before you got to it.

            “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

          • Oboehner

            Definition of appellate: of, relating to, or recognizing appeals; specifically : having the power to review the judgment of another tribunal
            Have opinions become the law of the land doesn’t seem to be there.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I think the key words there are “jurisdiction…as to law”….

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I have this vision of Oboehner driving down the left side of the interstate screaming “YOU’RE ALL GOING THE WRONG WAY!” as he dodges oncoming traffic.

          • Oboehner

            You must mean the law that states only Congress can legislate (make laws).

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Good thing the courts don’t make law then. (despite your insistence that they do)

          • Oboehner

            Great, then Roe v. Wade is irrelevant and non-binding!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, it’s an interpretation of the Constitution, which we all agree is binding.

          • Oboehner

            Nope, binding indicates it is law – since the courts cannot make law it is NOT binding. It was a ruling given in one case and has no relevance elsewhere.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            See TheKingOfRhye’s comment below.

    • Bob Johnson

      And it would make capital punishment illegal – “to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.”

    • Oboehner

      Given that only Congress can make law, how is one court case even relevant?

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Is this your first day in America? Are you not aware of how the three branches of government work?

        • Oboehner

          Article 1,Section 1. “ALL legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” – you mean this government?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What exactly is it you think the Supreme Court does?

          • Oboehner

            See Article 3, Section 2.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, let’s try this a different way. You are aware that every single time the Supreme Court issues a ruling, everyone in this country stops doing what they’re doing and immediately complies with it.

            You are aware of that, right?

          • Oboehner

            That sounds like a personal problem brought on by ignorance on the part of “everyone in this country”. Still not law.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I see. So, then, literally every judge, lawyer, law professor, politician, and federal agency simply doesn’t know how the Constitution works. Only you do. Correct?

          • Oboehner

            Simple ignorance or indifference – most often the latter, and I would hardly say “every”.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Oh, really? Okay, so cite me some legal scholars who think that case law doesn’t matter. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

            Which legal publications do you subscribe to? It couldn’t be the ABA journal. Or the Harvard Law Review. Or the Yale Law Review. Or any law review, because those are all full of case citations.

          • Oboehner

            “Case law” is an oxymoron. Opinions are like sphincters, everyone has one yet the Constitution is clear.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So you’re not going to answer my question?

          • Oboehner

            “Which legal publications do you subscribe to?”

            Hint: it was ratified on June 21, 1788
            .

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So, none then. Got it.

            You have no understanding of the law, and because you do no reading, you’re not going to obtain any.

          • Chris

            Well, logically, if Oboehner already believes that he knows the law better than anyone else then who could he learn from?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Haha! True that.

            Lawyers in practice have biennial education requirements to meet. I would love to be a fly on the wall of Oboehner’s conversation with the licensing department: “I’m sorry, I can’t do any Continuing Education! I already know more about every field of law in existence than any other lawyer in the world! There’s nothing for me to learn and nobody who could teach me! Can I have my requirements waived?”

          • Oboehner

            So the Constitution is nothing now, is that it? No wonder the legal system is such a pathetic joke.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It’s not “nothing.” It’s just that our system of laws does not allow every attorney the right to litigate a case based on his own interpretation of it. THAT system would be a pathetic joke. Nobody could ever win a case, because nobody’s position would ever be adjudged right or wrong.

          • Oboehner

            But a judge can rule based on his/her interpretation of it and that’s not a pathetic joke. Then the whole jury thing is just a formality, right?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Juries decide whether a set of facts occurred and if they occurred, that they fit into a legal theory. Juries do not rule on the law. Judges do.

            And they don’t rule on their own interpretation, they rule by a number of factors, mostly chosen by the arguments put forth by the litigants. Sometimes a litigant may ask a judge to rule that the statute in question is unconstitutional. More often, they ask a judge to rule only on whether the facts fit a certain legal theory, but not always.

          • Oboehner

            “And they don’t rule on their own interpretation” Ever hear of juror nullification?
            Any judges opinions are relevant only to that case (if within their boundaries), they don’t magically become the law of the land.

          • James M. Odom

            Primarily, it unconstitutionally violates the above section of the Constitution. Stopping what they’re doing and complying with the Supreme Court is a) not always the case (e.g., Roy Moore – correctly ignoring them in Alabama for the past couple of decades) and b) is a newer development (e.g., Dred Scott – Lincoln: follow it this time, but it is only good for this one case) – again correctly, and c) should not be the case – all branches have an independent responsibility to follow the Constitution. Congress should revoke most of SCOTUS’s jurisdiction, as is their Constitutional duty, for violating their oaths to support and defend the Constitution!

      • TheKingOfRhye

        That old argument again? Really? Haven’t we already been through this? (and refuted it, at that) If Supreme Court cases have no relevance, why is it that we have interracial and same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states? If nothing the courts do is relevant, what is even their purpose?

        (and, no, before someone says it, because I KNOW they will, I’m not saying race and sexual orientation are the same thing or something like that)

        • Oboehner

          Article 1, Section 1.
          ALL legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the
          United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
          Representatives.
          So you’re refuting the Constitution now? Or does the meaning of the word ALL escape you?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            OK, then tell me, which laws that we have now has the Supreme Court made? Roe v. Wade didn’t make a new law, Obergefell didn’t make a new law….

            And what do you the think the SC is FOR, if their rulings aren’t relevant in any way?

          • Oboehner

            Why on earth would RvW have to be overturned then? It is not law therefore not binding?
            *sigh* Article 3, Section 2 Basically settling matters between states and as an appeals court for lower courts settling matters between two parties.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            And sometimes they find a law affecting one of those “matters” is unconstitutional. So no law is made, an old one is struck down. Again, I thought we’ve been through all this back in 2015.

          • Oboehner

            And sometimes they overstep their bounds and ignorant fools think it is somehow binding, again post the section of the Constitution that states they have the power to find anything “unconstitutional”.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Article 3 Section 2.

            In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

            The key part being “jurisdiction as to law”….

            I don’t know, personally, I think it’s a good thing, that we have a branch of government, separate from the legislative, whose job it is to rule on the constitutionality of laws. Kinda fits in with the whole idea of “checks and balances” and three equal branches and all that stuff.

          • Oboehner

            Need the definition of appellate again? Or “lower courts”? Or how about “legislate”?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Roe v Wade was an appeal, so how does “appellate” not apply to it? And, the point I keep trying to make is that ruling a law unconstitutional is not legislating.

          • Oboehner

            An appeal between two parties, not inclusive of the rest of the population, Ruling a law unconstitutional has nothing to do with “appellate” nor is it a power granted to the court by the Constitution. It is a power usurped by the courts themselves.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “An appeal between two parties, not inclusive of the rest of the population,”

            I find that utterly preposterous. It doesn’t make any sense. You’re basically saying something like Roe v. Wade, or Obergefell just means something like “you particular people are entitled to this protection of the law, but JUST YOU and no one else”?? Ever heard of the 14th Amendment????

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, he does mean that. He believes that every issue in law needs to be relitigated from scratch, every time it comes up, everywhere in the country.

            The Supreme Court would literally have to hear the same case over and over and over again. I can’t imagine why they would want to do that.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            And there’s a thing called precedent, too, but apparently that doesn’t matter either….

          • Oboehner

            I don’t care how you find it, since the courts cannot legislate (make law) there is no law to have protection of. Ever hear of the word all?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The fact that courts don’t make law doesn’t mean laws don’t apply.

          • Oboehner

            Read you post several times and tell me it’s not nonsensical. Law applies but court decisions are not law so they do not apply to all, just the parties involved in each case.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Read you post several times and tell me it’s not nonsensical.”

            OK, it’s not.

            “Law applies but court decisions are not law so they do not apply to all, just the parties involved in each case.”

            Even disregarding the 14th Amendment I mentioned earlier, there is still a thing called legal precedent. True that that’s not always binding, but it is usually followed more often than not, so past decisions do have relevance.

          • Oboehner

            “OK, it’s not.” If you say so.
            Read slowly: Since courts cannot make law, their decisions are not law therefore the 14th DOES NOT apply. Legal precedent would be useful if they came in an extra soft double roll, the truth is they are NOT law, NOT binding so past decisions only have relevance after dropping a large steamy one.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Yes, the 14th Amendment does apply. Of course it does. Or are you telling me courts can be as unconstitutional as they want? You do know, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, right? Courts don’t make law, true, by they RULE ON LAW.

            If what you’re saying is true – that court decisions have no relevance to anything but the particular case under question – then why was interracial marriage considered legal nationwide after Loving v. Virginia?

            Maybe it’s kind of going of on a tangent, but I wonder what you think about all the executive orders Trump has been issuing…

          • Oboehner

            The 14th Amendment grants equal protection UNDER THE LAW, since only Congress can make law, the 14th does not apply to court decisions. Deciding on interracial marriage is a topic for the states to decide for themselves – right or wrong.
            Executive orders are non-law no matter who issues them.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            But surely you have to at least acknowledge that court decisions, while not making law (which I have consistently said, is not what they do), are applications of the law. Therefore, YES, the Constitution does apply to court decisions. Do you actually think we should have a court system that laws DON’T apply to??? Because if law doesn’t apply to courts, that means they could make all sorts of rulings…..like, say, they could rule that you don’t have a right to free speech, or something like that.

            Also, here’s the actual questions the SC was ruling on in Obergefell:

            1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
            2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

            See, they’re not MAKING law, they’re ruling on what the law says. Or interpreting it. Not the same thing as making a law.

            To look at it yet another way…..what do you think should happen if a law is passed that is unconstitutional? I guess, by how you think things work, we’re just stuck with that law, until Congress (the people the made the law in the first place, mind you!) passes another law that nullifies it? So….the way I see it, you’re okay with unconstitutional laws and unconstitutional court decisions. Funny, I thought you were pretty big on the Constitution….

          • Oboehner

            “are applications of the law” Only if not one word or the meaning has changed, but then it is only relevant to the case at hand. No I don’t think we have a court system that duly passed laws don’t apply to – especially the Constitution.

            “they could rule that you don’t have a right to free speech” That would be a crap ruling which unless I was personally involved in that case wouldn’t mean anything to me.

            1. No, that would fall under the 10th.

            2. No, that would again violate the 10th.

            Therefore if someone wants to marry their lawnmower and some court gave them permission, that would be between that court and that weirdo. It would not pertain to me as it would not be binding as it is not law.

            “what do you think should happen if a law is passed that is unconstitutional?” Then I would hope that the jury at my trial would have half a brain and exercise juror nullification and dispense with it. What do you think helped repeal prohibition? Juries were refusing to convict. So no I am not ok with unconstitutional anything – including courts legislating from the bench.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I was using the example of Obergefell to show that they were ruling on a law, not making a law.

            “1. No, that would fall under the 10th.

            2. No, that would again violate the 10th.”

            Wrong on both, since the courts have long held that marriage is an unenumerated right covered by the 9th Amendment.

            “Therefore if someone wants to marry their lawnmower and some court gave them permission,”……it would be legal precedent. That court would have determined that the existing law allows that. Not that they made a law, but that the laws we already have say that.

            “Then I would hope that the jury at my trial”

            Trial? What trial? I was asking if there was an unconstitutional law that was passed.

          • Oboehner

            Right on both counts, the courts CANNOT make a blanket ruling.

            “That court would have determined that the existing law allows that.” In that case ONLY.

            “Trial? What trial? I was asking if there was an unconstitutional law that was passed.” The ensuing trial as a result of my ignoring the unconstitutional law – I seriously had to explain that?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I still don’t get how people can think that if a court determines a law allows something, how could it only apply to ONE case. Again, the 14th Amendment provides for equal protection under the law. Court decisions are rulings on law, so that applies.

          • Oboehner

            How could one court opinion NOT apply to only one case? Otherwise it is illegal legislating.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            OK, this is getting to the point where we’re just going around in circles here. I’ll just say, though…..just about everybody actually involved in the legal field seems to think differently from you, so maybe that might tell you something.

          • Oboehner

            It tells my that useless popular opinion rules the day rather than the facts.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, but I think you might need the definition of “jurisdiction as to law.”

          • Oboehner

            The authority given the court by law – in this case the Constitution (the rule of law) which doesn’t grant the power you errantly claim

          • Ambulance Chaser

            That’s one interpretation. The entire legal community has a different one. Why should I believe yours?

          • Oboehner

            Why should I care about mass ignorance when the Constitution states the truth so accurately?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Do you always fail to understand the difference between what reality is and what you wish reality was?

            If you got charged with an offense you disagreed with, would you skip your court date because you think the law is wrong?

          • Oboehner

            Do you always fail to understand the difference between what reality is and what you wish reality was?
            If I felt my charge was unjust, I would hope and pray my jury had a clue about the law and juror nullification, otherwise I would be at the mercy of those with the guns – right or wrong.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Try this a different way. We need to clarify the issue.

            Is it your position that the American legal system SHOULDN’T grant courts the power of judicial review, or DOESN’T grant courts the power of judicial review?

          • Oboehner

            Powers not delegated in the Constitution are left to the states, I don’t see the power to strike law anywhere in the Constitution.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So, are you going to answer my question or not? Is it your contention that this ISN’T how law is practiced or SHOULDN’T be?

          • Oboehner

            It’s my contention that Roe v Wade is non-law as courts cannot legislate – period. How’s that?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            How is it? It’s evasive and non-responsive to the question you were asked.

            So I’ll ask it again. For the third time, do you believe that in our system of laws, courts can set binding precedent but shouldn’t, or courts can’t set binding precedent, and I’ve been lying to you?

          • Oboehner

            Courts cannot create sweeping, binding precedent , if it is binding is it not law? Courts cannot make law.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Still nonresponsive. I have to conclude at this point that you’re trolling.

          • Oboehner

            Nonresponsive to what? Courts cannot make law period, no matter how much you try to twist it.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I’m asking what courts DO, not what you’d LIKE them to do.

          • Oboehner

            That would be found in Article 3, Section 2 as I have posted before – repeatedly.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So, you’re telling me that if I filed a motion, and cited case precedent to establish my point, the judge would deny my motion and say “Don’t cite cases!”?

          • Oboehner

            If the Constitution were being violated repeatedly would that make it right?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So, you admit that, right or wrong, courts work on precedent?

          • Oboehner

            They do and it’s wrong.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I don’t know why you couldn’t have just said that at the beginning. That’s all I was looking for.

          • Oboehner

            Would only take enough people with any constitutional savvy to overturn that apple cart.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Well, good luck with that.

            Not sure how you plan on doing it, but have fun. Meanwhile, I’ll be over here practicing law the way I and everyone else in my field were trained to do it.

          • Oboehner

            It’s really too bad you weren’t taught the right way.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            The “right way” is not defined as “Whatever Oboehner says it is.” Clearly, you define Article III, Sec. 2 differently than literally everyone else in America, but that doesn’t automatically make your interpretation the right one.

          • Oboehner

            Empty claims of “literally everyone else in America” made by one emotionally invested in his own brainwashing. The right way is not defined by whatever the courts system says it is bestowing upon themselves powers illegally.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, which lawyers and judges think precedent doesn’t matter in America? Name names.

          • Bob Johnson

            Roy Moore, Orly Taitz

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Wait a minute, so when the Constitution say that the Supreme Court has “jurisdiction as to law” that means something other than “authority regarding the law?”

          • Oboehner

            Not the power to make law or twist it to suit their personal beliefs.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Who says they’re doing that?

          • Oboehner

            Who doesn’t know they are?

        • Ambulance Chaser

          I’m starting to think this might be a manifestation of the Tenther Movement, the belief that the powers of the Federal Government have gotten far out of control. They’re obsessed with the Tenth Amendment (and little else), believing that the Federal Government can do almost nothing.

          The Tenthers aren’t a cohesive group, and they don’t have much of an overriding ideology, so when they say that the government is too big, their solutions can be any number of things. Oboehner’s is to simply insist, over and over, that Supreme Cour rulings have no power, do nothing, and need not be obeyed.

          Wikipedia lists them as similar to the Sovereign Citizens movement, and with good reason; they’re two opposite sides of the same coin. The SovCits twist court rulings to fit some deranged, conspiratorial ideology whereas the Tenthers simply refuse to acknowledge rulings. But both end up believing dogmatically and irrationally in a made-up version of our legal system.

          • Chris

            Thank goodness we don’t have tenthers in Australia and Sovereign Citizens are viewed as a potential terrorist threat.

  • Robert

    Every one knows from conception hum as n child

    • Chris

      “Every one knows from conception human children are human ”

      Everyone does NOT know this. You don’t KNOW this. You certainly believe it but you don’t know it.

      Additionally if human life ends when the brain ceases to function then human life may be taken as beginning when the brain begins to function. Most abortions are carried out long before a brain develops.

      • NCOriolesFan

        Chris, a middle school biology book is smarter than you. Were you an alien from outer space at conception.

        • Chris

          I have been nothing but polite to you. Why do you call me names? Is it because you can’t counter my argument?

        • Chris

          In philosophy to claim to ‘know’ something means you can prove it. You can’t prove your statement is true therefore you don’t ‘know’ it. Have I insulted you in order to make my point? No. Why did you feel it necessary to insult me? Is it because you felt threatened by me pointing this out? Is it because you’re run out of arguments and insults is all you have left?

          • NCOriolesFan

            “Everyone does NOT know this. You don’t KNOW this. You certainly believe it but you don’t know it.”

            Only liberals don’t know this since they create all kinds of excuses to deny the humanity of the developing baby human. The rest of the human race (with common sense) already knows the concept of basic simple biology.

          • Chris

            “Only liberals don’t know this …”

            Two points.
            1) I’m neither a liberal nor a conservative since I believe that the left/right dichotomy is dead.
            2) What you’ve just said is a stereotype and usually associated with bigotry. Would you care to withdraw your statement?

            “…since they create all kinds of excuses to
            deny the humanity of the developing baby human.”

            I’m not creating anything. Please answer these questions.
            1) Do humans have a brain? Yes or no.
            2) When the egg of a woman is first fertilized does it have a brain? Yes or no?

            “The rest of the human
            race (with common sense) already knows the concept of basic simple
            biology.”

            You mean like the rest of the human race ‘knew’ that the sun went round the Earth? Or that the world was flat? You mean common knowledge like that? The truth is, just because lots of people believe something does NOT make it so. You show that something’s true with evidence or logic.

        • Chris

          To answer your question I was a fertilized egg at conception. I was as human as the cells on my skin but I wasn’t a human being. A human being has a functioning brain and at conception that didn’t exist. Just like it didn’t exist for every other human on the planet.

          The most which can be said is that, at conception, I was a potential human.

          • NCOriolesFan

            Not only potential, a developing baby human too.

          • Chris

            A bunch of cells is NOT a baby.

          • NCOriolesFan

            Duh, no kidding. Cells DEVELOPE into a POTENTIAL baby human. .

          • Chris

            Thus it is a potential human. We are in agreement.

          • Oboehner

            There is life when cells divide.

      • Joseph Xavier

        The fact the brain had yet developed wit the zygote does not make that new life less human. I’m sorry to disappoint you. The mere fact that that one-celled life form, zygote, i.e. (a human being) does not have a visual brain or limbs doesn’t mean that it isn’t a person.
        Every life begins with a first stage of development. We don’t develop into a human being, we are at that early stage, a human life that ALREADY exists.
        You are STILL developing as we speak, if you’d really like to get technical about it. Under your logic, a five year old isn’t yet developed.

        • Chris

          “The fact the brain had not yet developed with the zygote does not make
          that new life less human.”

          Correct. It’s alive and human in the same way that the cells on my hand are alive and human. But cells aren’t a person since they don’t have a brain.

          “The mere fact
          that that one-celled life form, zygote, i.e. (a human being) does not
          have a visual brain or limbs doesn’t mean that it isn’t a person.”

          Yes it does. People have functioning brains. A bunch of cells do not have a brain [functioning or otherwise] therefore they are not a people.

          “Every
          life begins with a first stage of development. We don’t develop into a
          human being, we are at that early stage, a human life that ALREADY
          exists.”

          Incorrect. At the stage when a bunch of cells exist we are potential people. Potential people can only ever have potential rights though. Thus, in the case of abortion, only one actual person is having an abortion – the mother.

          “You are STILL developing as we speak, if you’d really like
          to get technical about it. Under your logic, a five year old isn’t yet
          developed.”

          Incorrect. My argument had NOTHING to do with development. You introduced that aspect remember? I am arguing that to be considered a person you must have a functioning brain. Thus a five year old child is a person. A 1 year old child is a person. A bunch of cells is not since it doesn’t have a functioning brain. It is a potential person.
          Clear now?

          • Joseph Xavier

            No. What you seem to not understand is the plain fact that just because there isn’t a brain present doesn’t mean you don’t exist.
            Your DNA present makes you exist. If your DNA is present, that makes you exist. Your DNA makes you, you. That one-celled life form (the human zygote) is you, that developing, you. You cannot look the way you look now unless you had to have gone through that stage of development in the beginning.
            Who are you to determine when life begins? Is it up to you?

          • Chris

            “What you seem to not understand is the plain fact that just because
            there isn’t a brain present doesn’t mean you don’t exist.”

            Unless you are talking about the existence of the soul then, until the brain develops I [as an individual] do not exist. It is through the brain that that we have thoughts and feelings. That we process data. It is the brain. Thus it is the brain which makes me me.

            “If your DNA is present, that makes you exist.
            Your DNA makes you, you.”

            Incorrect. My DNA makes me a potential person. It does not, by itself, make me a person since if I merely consist of replicating cells since cells do NOT have a brain and a brain means you an individual.

            “That one-celled life form (the human zygote) is
            you, that developing, you.”

            Correction. It is the potential me. I am more than a collection of cells. I am more than the sum total of my DNA. I have a brain which can learn, think, and process emotion. These things are far more important in making me an individual than DNA or a bunch of cells.

            “You cannot look the way you look now unless
            you had to have gone through that stage of development in the
            beginning.”

            Irrelevant. The way I look has NOTHING to do with my personhood.

            “Who are you to determine when life begins? Is it up to you”

            Is it up to me to determine when a Human person exists? No. It is up to logic. since the question is on of definition.

          • Joseph Xavier

            The science is there my friend, and has been there for quite some time. All you have to do is look is look it up.

          • Chris

            I did look it up. Cells do not have brains. According to a medical site “10 weeks The
            embryo has become a fetus. His vital organs – such as kidneys,
            intestines, BRAIN, and liver – are starting to function. Tiny
            fingernails and toenails are starting to form.

          • Chris

            Thank you for referring to me as a ‘friend’ and your polite manner. Both are much appreciated.

          • Joseph Xavier

            I never meant any ill will within my discussion with you.
            I understand your views on this subject, however I strongly feel that you are indeed wrong.
            We can surely agree to disagree.
            I wish other discussions that I’ve had went as smoothly, lol. Take care, Chris.

          • Chris

            You too. Like you I see no reason why these discussions can’t be polite.

          • Joseph Xavier

            Absolutely. Make a great day. 😁

  • james blue

    So will miscarriages have to be reported to the cops and investigated?

    Every state where personhood has been on the ballot it has failed. People tend to only be for laws like that when it only effects others, but it would criminalize the most popular form of birth control.

    Around 50% think abortion should be legal with restrictions and 30% think it should be legal under all circumstances.

    Only around 20% of the nation believes abortion should be illegal with no exceptions. This means 80% of the country think abortion should be legal to some extent.

    This site doesn’t allow links, you can find the surveys by searching “pro life survey”

    • NCOriolesFan

      Miscarriages are a NATURAL process of the female human body. There is no crime per se here unless the miscarriage is product of a crime against a mom.

      • james blue

        How are you going tho know it was a natural miscarriage without an investigation?

        • Chris

          If the Lifers are really serious about this then they better be in favour of big government because such investigations would require a huge increase in the number of police. Talk about expensive.

          • NCOriolesFan

            Big government created the abortion right in the first place just like SSM and church-state separation.

          • Chris

            “Big government created the abortion right in the first place just like SSM and church-state separation.”

            Evidence required.

          • NCOriolesFan

            Look it up.

          • Chris

            You’re the one who made the assertion therefore you’re the one who needs to supply the evidence.

  • NCOriolesFan

    Wow, the most direct challenge to Roe V Wade yet. Call your federal legislators to pass this bill.

    • Chris

      The real questions are these:
      1) Are you so concerned about abortion that you are prepared to undermine your constitution to have it banned?
      2) Do you want a theocracy? Because you must realise that any successful attempt to strike down a law will only be reversed in the next generation unless you establish one.

      • NCOriolesFan

        1. there is NOTHING constitutional on abortion like SSM and church-state separation.
        2. The USA is a REPUBLIC. When did conception of life become a theocracy.

        • Chris

          “1. there is NOTHING constitutional on abortion like SSM and church-state separation.”

          The supreme court disagrees.

          “2. The USA is a REPUBLIC. When did conception of life become a theocracy.”

          I’m sorry your reply has nothing to do with my argument.
          Allow me to simplify my argunment.
          1) Laws can be overturned.
          2) If you overturn the laws on abortion then, at a later time, those laws in turn can be overturned.
          3) The only way to stop, or at least slow down, this process is by becoming a theocracy.
          4) Pense [the vice president] is a dominionist who would like the US to become a theocracy.

          • NCOriolesFan

            The Constitution has always disagreed with SCOTUS.
            SCOTUS has taken the Constitution away from the majority of common sense Americans and given it to liberals and turned it into a immoral free for all.

          • Chris

            “The Constitution has always disagreed with SCOTUS.”

            It’s the supreme court’s job to interpret the constitution thus it can’t be in disagreement with it. That’s like saying the umpire is always in disagreement with the rules of the game.

            “SCOTUS has taken
            the Constitution away from the majority of common sense Americans and
            given it to liberals and turned it into a immoral free for all.”

            Since it’s the supreme court’s job to interpret the constitution then they are giving the interpretation to the US. If you want to interpret that as being liberal that’s your business.