But there is hope for these littlest of victims, at least in Ohio-- a slim hope, but hope nonetheless. Some in America haven't given up the fight.
An Ohio House committee has received testimony from the youngest people ever to do so.
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 3/3/2011
State lawmakers in Ohio are considering the "Heartbeat Bill," which would prohibit aborting of babies who have a detectable heartbeat, which is medically evident as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. Janet Porter of Faith2Action, who is regarded as the architect of the bill, explains the unique testimony that committee members heard on Wednesday -- from the womb.
"We had an unborn child -- we actually had two of them. They not only were seen but they were also heard," Porter shares. "...We were able to zoom in on their beating hearts and with the aid of an ultrasound we could hear them as well -- and I'm hoping that it will move the hearts of legislators to pass the Heartbeat Bill."
Janet Porter, the ministry leader and pro-life activist believes the audible testimony of the unborn babies, both only a few weeks in the womb, changed some hearts among committee members.
"I believe we saw some people who were surprised at just how clearly the sound of that heartbeat is and how you could see it so clearly, especially in the 15-week unborn baby," she shares. "It was interesting that the ultrasound could also make it in color so that the heart appeared orange and it was beating -- and it really jumped off the screen."
Porter also tells OneNewsNow that some 50 of 99 Ohio House members have signed on to the bill. If passed by both chambers and signed into law, the bill will be the most protective of life in the nation.
"Stoning is legal in Iran; does that make it right?"
ReplyDeleteI don't live in Iran. Do you?
Stilling a heartbeat isn't murder. Murder has both moral and legal definitions. It's pretty clear that as the law stands up until 22-24 weeks an abortion is not legally murder. Morally it may be murder, but that is a choice and decision that each individual woman/couple must make and live with. What you want is a change in the legal definition of murder to include stilling a heartbeat earlier. All of your moral arguments to this point have not swayed anyone. You will not succeed in your goal as long as you continue this same course.
ReplyDeleteTo my mind there can be no murder if the fetus can not both breathe and have a heartbeat separate from the mother. While the fetus is still dependent on the mother's body for life it is hers to take or give.
And when the time come that technology is able to support the undeveloped fetus externally of the mother, then there better be a private organization willing to take on the task of the preemie care. And even further into the child's life there better be a private organization willing to support the care and development of the resulting child.
At some intermediate point a mother passes the pint of no-cost termination and before the point of safe delivery of the child where there must be evaluation. But those decision shouldn't be guided by harsh legislative or punitive diktat. They should be requests brought before and handled by the judicial branch, which is designed to address such individual needs and cases.
That's what I want. Please do not ever ascribe to me desires or motives beyond what I have outlined above. It is the simple basic truth.
What solutions would you want of this moral question?
"All of your moral arguments to this point have not swayed anyone."
ReplyDeleteBen. You presume this reflects badly on the arguments. The failure is in those who resist the logic and truth of the arguments. It is not an opinion that the unborn are people endowed with the unalienable right to life. It is a scientific fact.
Like so many others, you make the subjective decision that because the unborn can't do this or that, or hasn't developed this or that organ that you can insist personhood has yet to be achieved. How self-serving and Klan-like. A fetus is dependent because it's designed that way. It isn't in the womb by choice, but by invitation. And some contemptable slug is going to decide when that invited person is worthy of continued life? That is some high quality of character your position supports there, Ben.
And then you come up with this notion of how and when such things should be decided. The first thing that should have been decided never was: the status of the unborn. Which SCOTUS decision dictated when life begins? I don't think Roe v Wade covered it.
I'm surprised some of you haven't written about Japan or Lybia by now.
ReplyDeleteObama is throwing the leadership of the free-world into the laps of the incompetents in Europe. America's descent is accelerating by the second.
I predict either Venezuela, China, or Iran will make aggressive moves in the coming days and weeks. Possibly all...for the most effect.
BTW,
ReplyDeleteWell said, MA.