It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Sneak Attack Against Roe V. Wade

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   
H. R. 227 To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.


HR 227 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 227

To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 7, 2009

Mr. BROUN of Georgia (for himself, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr. LINDER, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. LUCAS, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. LAMBORN, Ms. FALLIN, Mr. HERGER, Mr. JONES, Mr. TERRY, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. CARTER, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. INGLIS, Mr. FORBES, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. WAMP, Mr. AKIN, Mr. KLINE of Minnesota, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. EHLERS, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. SCHOCK, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. ROONEY, and Mr. LATTA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Human Life Act'.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION.

In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress' power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States--

(1) the 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; and

(2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act:

(1) FERTILIZATION- The term `fertilization' means the process of a human spermatozoan penetrating the cell membrane of a human oocyte to create a human zygote, a one-celled human embryo, which is a new unique human being.

(2) CLONING- The term `cloning' means the process called somatic cell nuclear transfer, that combines an enucleated egg and the nucleus of a somatic cell to make a human embryo.

(3) HUMAN; HUMAN BEING- The terms `human' and `human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, beginning with the earliest stage of development, created by the process of fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent.

END


While everyone is up in arms against the Health Care initiative, our House of Representatives has decided to sneak attack the right of women to have an abortion. They want to deem that life begins at fertilization and so weaken the protections provided by Roe V. Wade.

Please contact your Reps and tell them to kill this bill.




posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Funny, I was just thinking that the government was doing something to get on my good side for once....

Now I'm worried why they're doing this? What are they up to?

Sure, I agree, but... the government doesn't usually do things for the good anymore.

Maybe they're feeling guilty... maybe they know that a lot of people are going to die, so they want to preserve as much life as possible.

Maybe, just maybe, this affected one of their own and they realize how stupid and hurtful the whole thing is!........

Maybe.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Thank You for the good find. I cannot even begin to say how happy I am regarding the current legislation; with the enormous amount of Women walking around carrying my spawn; the spawn of Satan they must not be able to remove them.


Okay, I couldn't resist the above.....
still laughing.....

In reality this is an outrage to me. I cannot even begin to imagine the nasty good ole' boy poli-ticks that think this legislation is good. Who is anyone to decide what is right, or wrong for anyone else??? Just plain disgusting. I was all happy joy joy with my Saturday night grog; until reading Your thread. I am really steamed just thinking about the violation of a woman's body.

What about the violation to life for a neglected baby, child, and finally an adult who was never loved, or educated because they flat out weren't wanted??? It is as simple as that. I don't have children because I would love them too much, and feel I could not give them as much as I would like, or they would need; so I don't have any.

I really think the choice is not some fat cat lobby bloated poli-ticks, but that of the Lady!!!!!!!!!!!


S&F



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   
I just wonder why they thought that this would be a good idea? I tend to check the new legislation every once and a while for things just like this. They want to determine that life begins at fertilization so that they can weaken the position of Pro-Choice advocates.

Women have the right to govern their own bodies. I don't understand why it's such a big issue that sometimes you just are not in a position to care for a child right that you choose to end the pregnancy. I wouldn't want to force a child onto a person that does not want one. It's not fair to the child and it's not fair to the mother.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Biologically speaking life does begin at conception, we have just not chosen to deem that life as human and protect-able under the full measure of the law because at the time it is inside its Mother and therefore the Mother gets to decide what's best. But yes it is indeed a life, and its genetic structure is definitively human and is 100% unique...

Not sure how I feel about the legislation, I have the unenviable position of being both pro-choice and pro-life. There is no way we can say the law has that sort of power over a person's body let alone a person's offspring but at the same time I shake my head at the bizarre infanticidal tendencies of our civilization that seem a holdover from a more immature stage of society. And yet we cannot demand these children be brought, unwanted, into this world and hope to find them a home. It is truly a rock and a hard place...



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
It's not fair to the child and it's not fair to the mother.


So, lets just murder the little guy and have a beer at the end of the day.

Why stop at pregnancy? Why not legalize infanticide?

Regarding life beginning at fertilization, it would be excellent if such a bill was made into law. Not that the eugenicists and perverts in Congress will pass it.


[edit on 20-9-2009 by Praetorian Guard]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Biologically speaking life does begin at conception, we have just not chosen to deem that life as human and protect-able under the full measure of the law...


Sort of like how we decided that black folks in America were less than human, hhmmm? Great Scott! Pro-abortion ideology is right up the alley of our dear overlords and masters.

I for one find the murder of undesirables to be repugnant and sub-human behavior.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorian Guard
 


A good friend of mine was engaged; his fiance was gang raped, and impregnated. Her life was changed in a manner she could not handle as her family thought all life was precious; apparently like You do.
She overdosed on Tylenol, yes it can be done. She did this a couple months after the rape, and accomplished the final deed.

I cannot even begin to hear You defend how she should have been strong, and had a baby to be born with several felon daddies who not one had any love, but murder, and hate; tell me how precious the life was?

Before You open Your mouth, or ink Your pen, I would strongly suggest a word, and phrasing check; cause so far You seem ignorant, and not fully engaged.

Perhaps a good gang rape occurring to You, or Yours would help Your Worldly outlook?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   
What a pile, sneaky little bastards -
I am very glad that there are some people consistent in the stance against government
over stepping its bounds. I hope this further infringement will be squashed, we cannot give up this kind of ground. If we cannot amend things with too much government
action then at least we can keep up the social front with less government mandate.

My families story and arguable my existence was on behalf of a botched abortion on my grannies behalf back in the depression era. Granny became sterile and adopted my mother, then my mother and father met by a chance in a place thousands of miles from my mothers intended state of residency - via her birth. I doubt that meeting would have ever taken place without the chain of events being exactly right. Would it have been killing ME if my grandmother never became sterile form an abortion all those years ago?

[edit on 20-9-2009 by mental modulator]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones
 


Usually I agree with you but not one his one. Yes it sucks for the mother but why punish the child for what the father did. So every woman who had a child with an abusive man should go out and kill the children because of their father?
Did you know it HURTS the baby when its aborted. The misinformation about abortions that is considered general knowledge is sickening. How would you like to die from being burned alive from the inside out. Don't think for a moment that you would hurt anymore than an unborn baby would. If adoption policies where changed so that it was based on the ability to provide a loving stable home instead of how many hundreds of thousands of dollars you can shell out every single aborted baby would have a home.
I'm sorry but i don't think men in general should be aloud to have a say in the matter unless its his child that is at risk for being aborted.
You can just ask my best friend who made this mistake, the emotional trauma from having an abortion is worse for her than the trauma she experienced from being raped daily from the age of 5 until she was 12. She would gladly go through it all over again to give the child who life she took a 2nd chance at life.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
Funny, I was just thinking that the government was doing something to get on my good side for once....

Now I'm worried why they're doing this? What are they up to?

Sure, I agree, but... the government doesn't usually do things for the good anymore.

Maybe they're feeling guilty... maybe they know that a lot of people are going to die, so they want to preserve as much life as possible.

Maybe, just maybe, this affected one of their own and they realize how stupid and hurtful the whole thing is!........

Maybe.


ha ha, they always "try" to get everyone's good side, but they never seem to be able



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorian Guard
 


Well I am for legalized human hunting, but that's the wildlife population expert in me talking.

As far as forcing a woman to birth a child they don't want or in the cases of rape incest or where the mother's life could be in danger, I don't think it should be up to our lawmakers what decisions are made for that person.

Yes I agree the hand full of cells is alive and is going to be a human. But I for one am not of the opinion that it is a sentient being at that point.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:22 AM
link   
So then when is it? You do realize it is pretty much human by 9 weeks before most women even know they are pregnant right? After that is just size weight and waiting for the lungs to develop.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 


Self awareness. That is when a being is truly alive. When it knows it's alive. If it doesn't know it's alive then it isn't

I think, therefore I am.

And yes there is a point when the fetus realizes that it exists and at that point it is alive.

Like when my son punched the ultrasound probe cause it was annoying him.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 





I'm sorry but i don't think men in general should be aloud to have a say in the matter unless its his child that is at risk for being aborted.


I don't even need to go back, and read what I wrote; because I agree with You a 100% on the above statement. The fact is Your statement is rhetorical; what is the majority in the legislative, or any branch of govt.???? MEN.

My entire stance in my life as a whole is absolute Liberty governed by simple Common Law. In a nut shell, as long as I don't hurt You, and You don't hurt me, then all is good.

I knew full well that making a post in this thread would cause controversy, and I'm not sorry for that. I do believe in pro choice, rather than forced decisions. There is a wide range of atrocities going on in this World currently. The important thing for both You, and I is to remain vigilant through petty issues; which the NWO count on to divide, and thus conquer us



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
I have a feeling this is one of those acts that get introduced every two years in hopes of it passing.

Sanctity of Human Life Act 109th Congress

Source

Yep.


The Sanctity of Life Act was a bill first introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) on July 20, 1995, and cosponsored by Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY). It was reintroduced with similar text by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) in 2005 in the 109th United States Congress, and again by Paul in the 110th United States Congress, but it did not pass and has not been reintroduced since then. The repeatedly introduced bill sparked advocacy from pro-life activists.


One reason I can't support Ron Paul. He's all for personal liberties until it comes to a woman and her health. Then it's his business to tell her what to do? Bah!


[edit on 20-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by sanchoearlyjones
reply to post by Praetorian Guard
 


A good friend of mine was engaged; his fiance was gang raped, and impregnated. Her life was changed in a manner she could not handle as her family thought all life was precious; apparently like You do.
She overdosed on Tylenol, yes it can be done. She did this a couple months after the rape, and accomplished the final deed.

I cannot even begin to hear You defend how she should have been strong, and had a baby to be born with several felon daddies who not one had any love, but murder, and hate; tell me how precious the life was?

Before You open Your mouth, or ink Your pen, I would strongly suggest a word, and phrasing check; cause so far You seem ignorant, and not fully engaged.

Perhaps a good gang rape occurring to You, or Yours would help Your Worldly outlook?


Good lord you pick the worse case scenario lol its like saying toture is ok because there may be a nuke and we need to save thousands of lives.

I'm all for abortion in the case of health or rape but not if you just got knocked up and don't want it anymore. Sure there will be some that take unpleasant means to do it themselves but man there was over a million babies aborted last year.

It is a eugenics program no doubt about it so i can't support it but in the case like you describe of course she should get one she was raped.

Like i said its ok in the case of Rape and if the health of the mother is at risk aside from that no. imho.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Beefcake
 


Okay, it took a lot of pondering to get through how to respond. I am glad You, and Calstrom wrote what Ya'll did.

Eugenics You say, Eh??? I agree! However, the problem doesn't just lay with abortion. The eugenics is being perpetrated across the board on a societal level.

Look at the schools; things that were once part of making America great are now forbidden, but other things that were forbidden are actually TAUGHT in school.

When I was in High School the parking lot had many many many vehicles with guns in plain site; it was good! It was fine, We all would go to the range after school. Now, OMG call the SWAT team.

When I was in school I didn't know a woman had a "cycle" until I was around 11, or 12. I wasn't thinking about sex; The rest of the guys, and I were talking about construction, shooting, GI FRICKIN JOE, etc.; while the girls were doing whatever girls do.

However, now the 5 year old pre schooler's are being taught how to have sexual relations


I think where I moderate out my opinion is that abortion is simply a tool. It is a matter of how it is used, and promoted that makes it either beneficial, or flat out Evil. I maintain this position because I've seen animals in nature, Momma's to be exact eat their new born critters; I'm guessing due to health, or survival reasons.....

The real ABSOLUTE EVIL Lays in the systematic destruction being perpetrated at all levels of society, and specifically targeting the youngest, and most vulnerable to being influenced........... again sex ed to five year olds??????WTF, I say again, WTF



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Praetorian Guard
 


Well I am for legalized human hunting, but that's the wildlife population expert in me talking.

As far as forcing a woman to birth a child they don't want or in the cases of rape incest or where the mother's life could be in danger, I don't think it should be up to our lawmakers what decisions are made for that person.

Yes I agree the hand full of cells is alive and is going to be a human. But I for one am not of the opinion that it is a sentient being at that point.


This is what really stirs the conflict in me. That life inside her womb is human but the government and law should in no way have jurisdiction over someone's body.

Its such a tough issue because so many are definitively on Against or For sides and there are those like me who are in the middle.

What we truly need to to entirely restructure society and form a world where the American dream doesn't require 2 kids. As a society we're so sexually immature that abortion seems necessary to us now but if we would actually learn to take responsibility for the actions we take and the offspring we make maybe we wouldn't have use for it in all but extreme medial circumstances...



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Not again...

Stylez and JaxonRoberts, my accomplices in debating the illegal actions of Congress should be here, shortly.

Enumerated Powers. The Federal lawmakers of the US are acting outside their jurisdiction. If this is passed, it will be illegal. Same as DOMA. I would think these guys would read the Constitution that got them elected ONCE in a while.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join