I agree, but surely no greater risk than that involved in an abortion.
my position is that the fetus has no right to continue existing by use of the woman's body, but if the fetus can survive without such use, the woman doesn't have a right to actively terminate a potentially independent being.
We can all have our own ideas and definitions about questions like this, and some of us may even have some thoughtful basis for them. It strikes me that you are much like the air and authority of God or a fascist--or any other brand of tyrant-- when you categorically take it upon yourself to say what rights a fetus or a woman has. You, like our Federal government, actually have no constitutional jurisdiction for making the law that defines human rights. Even the Supreme Court, under the view of the writers of the Constitution having only authority derived from their document we have called our Constitution, actually has no jurisdiction to settle this matter.
Powers not expressly granted by the Constitution to the Federal government were meant to be retained by the States, or the people. . .. at least until the Civil War, that was the understanding of the States and the people. I understand that some folks call it progress to use force to impose ideas on people nowadays, and the hankering to have the Federal government step into every muddle and "fix things" is pretty much the plague of our time in my opinion.
The legislation I referenced in the OP is one of tho e things, but I also consider Roe v. Wade one of those things. I don't see a clear way for us to resolve this and preserve individual freedom for all those individuals who are most absolutely involved. . . the child and mother being the ones most directly interested. I don't have an answer that I think is going to work, either. At a minimum, the Life at Conception legislation is a needed restraint on the power-grabbing Supreme Court.
Given that Americans will not find a satisfactory solution, I think one better compromise is to let States keep their powers that were not conferred on the Federal Government by the original intent of the States which formed this Union. Yes, people will cross state borders to get the medical service they want. That's not a hunk of glory either, it's still "rights" to the mother in derogation possibly to rights to the father, and a factual death to the fetus. I just hate our whole fascist Federal development so much I think any steps we can take to limit that monster are necessary victories against absolute tyranny.
OB, you and I have totally different views on a lot of things, and they come from our fundamentally different concepts of human liberty. You look to science and the musings within human skulls as the best information available. Some may say man has created the concept of God, but even without that concept or belief, we still take on the airs of a God of our own making when we believe in evidence, science, or government. I may not be in a position, or have convincing facts to compel others to see things my way, but I think a little human the size of a grain of rice is the ultimate symbol of the value of human life. Place whatever value you want on that, and you end up placing the same value on humans in every stage of their existence.
The fact that our state-controlled schools have devalued us to the extent that we have no rights whatsoever except what the government deigns to let us have is the central fact of our political existence today. I say we have consigned ourselves to being mere "human resources" in the hands of fascists. by which I mean cartelists who have the significant power in our government. And that is what we need to correct.
If you and oe were actually geniuses, you would look at the Tenth Amendment and insist on making the Supreme Court respect it as the fundamental limit on their power. And then you would grab on to that phrase about all powers not specifically granted to the Federal government being reserved "to the States, or the People", and you'd start screaming about the People having the right to decide this issue for themselves, individually.
I might still want to stand up for the life of every unborn child, but I'd be a preacher, not a legislator.
But probably, a lot of conservative, Bible-believing and God-fearing and human-loving folks would want to make this crusade for the unborn the next Civil War, and I think they do have the morally superior cause. We're not very great people when we can't be responsible for our actions with one another and don't care for our own offspring. Hot words maybe to folks whose moral center is contemporary state indoctrination rather than the Bible, but the whole reason people have cultivated the Biblical line of morals across a few thousand years is that it produces humans worth caring about. yep. kids.
maybe kids who will care for their parents in old age, and try to treat other people kindly or serve them even, with some kind of very high idea about the worth of human life.
