Life at Conception Act supported by Sen. John Thune

How can I support this??!?

This is the best thing (IMO) that could happen for the unborn. Making abortion illegal works (slowly) but granting human rights to the unborn is the way to go…

I contacted my senators and representatives & let them know.

I mentioned this over at Dakota Voice and I'll mention it here too:

I am just curious why they are introducing it into this Congress. A Congress heavily controlled by liberals. They can't expect it to pass. Why didn't they do this when Republicans controlled everything? It not only could've passed but they would've had a Republican president eager to sign it.

I wonder if Thune is a sponsor of this is because he's up for re-election in 2010. It's definately winning him point with you guys.

It should be pushed though with abortionist control of Congress it cannot pass.

Two elections ago, when we had Republican control of Congress it still would not have passed. We need a conservative, pro-life majority, not just a Republican one. Because of anti-life Republicans, it would take a Republican supermajority to give us a conservative and pro-life majority.

Given the anti-human majority on Capitol Hill, this bill will not even be allowed to come up, let alone actually pass.

By the way, George Bush would not have been "eager" to sign it. He would probably would have run from it as fast as he could.

Remember, he went to South Dakota in 2006 and campaigned against the unborn human rights referendum you had on the ballot.

Joe, I don't think you have your facts straight. GWB did not even come to SD in 2006, let alone to fight referred law #6. He did say, in 2006, that he would prefer a bill that included exceptions for rape, incest, and life and health of the mother. John Thune said the same thing in 2006, although he did vote Yes for life.

The great thing about this (kind of) bill is that's it's not specifically regarding abortion…it's a bill that would acknowledge the sanctity of all human life - the stay at home mom, the terrorist, the lawyer, the serial rapist, the handicapped student drooling in a cup, the unborn child, the school teacher, the man with no arms and legs….and so on. Every human life is sacred - and we have NO right to take the life of any of them…

While constitutional rights to "liberty" and a comfortable bed are largely debatable - the right to life is never in anyone's authority to remove.

Blogosphere Buzz…

Here's two blog posts from the blogosphere today. "Life at Conception Act supported by Sen. John Thune," Voices Carry The Life at Conception Act has been re-introduced by Sen. Thune, along with other Senators. "Pelosi On Stimulus STD Education…Wh…

[…] "Life at Conception Act supported by Sen. John Thune," Voices Carry The Life at Conception Act has been re-introduced by Sen. Thune, along with other Senators. […]

This does seem like a political maneuver. Don’t get me wrong, I believe John Thune is pro life, but he was extremely silent on both attempts in regards to the SD the abortion ban, for political reasons I’m sure. And now with a Democrat led government, I know, you know, he knows this will not stand a chance of passing, so to me this seems disingenuous and the timing very suspect. And I’m a pro life conservative! I get extremely tired of the games on BOTH sides.

I want to follow up with the fact that I would totally agree with an Act like that passing and it would be great if it would. My comment wasn't a comment against that, it was a comment about "Politics".

Brett, Haggs, Joe:

I've got a word for you; a name actually: Wilberforce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

Those of us who are contending for the recognition of the value all life don't stop when it isn't politically or socially expedient to do so.

I challenge all readers to do a little "news-searching" with an open heart and mind. Look at the financial troubles rocking the world and look at some of the companies/individuals who have taken moral positions contrary to the Word of God. The Bible says that everything that can be shaken will be shaken, so that what cannot not be shaken will remain.

Hebrews 12
25 See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven, 26 whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven.”

27 Now this, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain.

28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may[j] serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. 29 For our God is a consuming fire.

If you have the courage and want to understand what the Creator says about the time we are in, read this passage: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=24&chapter=21&version=50

If you are tempted to mock the One who made you, at least read these verses in Proverbs to see what your end will be.

Amy,

First of all, I'm on your side. Second if this was a genuine attempt this would of been attempted under a Republican controlled congress, senate, president, it was not. I believe in life at conception and a law like that to protect the unborn would be an answer to prayer, but this is a disingenuous attempt to make himself look good for his voting base. It's like singing worship with your lips but you heart is somewhere else.

Where was John Thunes voice during South Dakota's battle against abortion?

It's all about staying in power and moving up the ladder in DC. Kind of like Stephanie Herseth Sandlin voting against the bail out and now voting for the bail out……what! It was all about playing the game and staying in power.

Abortion needs to be overturned but it won't happen with this political stunt. But it sure does rile up the pro life base so I suppose it works for Thune for now when it doesn't cost him something.

Bret

I'm guess I'm just having a hard time understanding your motives. We really need to support JT and those like him who are taking a stand for life, no matter what the political environment is. There is enough contention and division in the LIFE camp without knocking our leaders when they DO take a stand for LIFE, no matter what the chances of that stand succeeding in the current day. I understand your point, certainly, but I wonder why you chose to publicly air such a cynical view about Thune - and how is that advancing our cause, that's all. Such rhetoric certainly doesn't encourage him, I'm sure. 1 Tim 2:1.

Amy,

I don't believe I have a "motive". I would question JT's motive in regards to his timing, why don't you? He needs to be held accountable as an elected official.

Where was he during the abortion issues facing SD? Can you satisfactorily answer that and an answer that is not related to his re-election.

I would like to see our cause advanced with honesty and integrity and not just go through the motions to keep your base happy.

As far as publicly airing my views, what? This isn't Nazi Germany! Like I said he needs to be held accountable.

I'm sick of spin on either side of the aisle and will certainly hold my party that holds my values accountable and if I can't speak my mind in an open forum like this then God help us all.

I see your point about supporting JT, but I agree with Bret. Politicians don't always do the right thing, even when they are pro-life, and it doesn't mean that we just have to blindly accept everything they do as doing the right thing. I think Bret is just stating what is probably going on, not ragging on JT.

While I believe life begins at conception and continue to support that position, I believe the pro-choice (political left) has been strategically correct in its incrementalism.

Most voters don't even understand that ROE V WADE is not the consitutional and moral disgrace that DOE V BOLTON is. The legal arguement and protests have focused on the most well known abortion ruling but not the most egregious.

As a purist, I want to see ALL abortions outlawed. If I were a politician, I would attack the present abortion rights laws as best I could. Every abortion prevented, is a victory for life.

FWIW, I think those of us fighting for life need to start focusing on DOE V BOLTON. This adjacent ruling gutted any and all restrictions on abortion that ROE V WADE appeared to support.

Most, if not all, "pro choice" proponents continue to argue their cause using the language of ROE V WADE. Most voters and far too many pro life supporters are unaware of the undermining of the "so called tri-mester protections" of ROE V WADE by the ruling of BOE V BOLTON.

So, if an autonomous human being exists at conception, Steve, then I'm still waiting for you to condemn in vitro fertilization procedures. Do you really think it's morally acceptable to freeze human beings in a lab? If someone tried to do that to me, I believe that would be called criminal assault.

Surely you are not so bored that you are still waiting for me to answer your baiting questions. I've said several times on the blog the Catholic Church opposes IVP and for good reason but that I take a little different view than the Catholic Church. Is that good enough for you? Didn't think so.

I do recommend you read the Embryo book I'm always recommending here. Don't suppose you will.

Science has answered the question of when human life begins and therefore abortion is unacceptable. You still haven't answered my simple question - Erin, is abortion wrong???

You know as well as I do IVP is a muddy terrain ethically and pastorally. But let me ask, if we freeze a human embryo to preserve it's life it certainly doesn't seem like assault does it?

So what are you going to do to prevent frozen human beings from being chucked in the trash when they're parents don't want or need them any longer? I'm assuming you think this is as much of a tragedy as an abortion, don't you?

Erin - lighten up please. It's a bit humorous to me that the debate coach's wife stays on point regardless of any acknowledgment of a thought/question but her own. This isn't a one-sided conversation and if it is, I try to get out of those as quick as I can and see if I can find someone else in the lobby to talk with. For me it really is like the reporters who come calling wanting a soundbite for an abortion article and they ignore all of what I say and re-word and re-ask their same old question until they can get something that remotely resembles what they need for the version of story they are planning to tell.

Even so, I'll play along once more. Call me a fool. IVF is inextricably intertwined with major moral and ethical problems that I'm not sure are resolvable. There are good outcomes and we all know happy moms/dads who thank God for the wonderful child who now walks the face of this earth. Even so, it's machiavellian medicine to proceed with the false peace that the end justifies the means and the lesser evils are tolerable because of a greater good that comes forth. With that said, I do not support it. Nor am I on a crusade against it as inconsistent as that may seem to you.

Perhaps one day I will broaden my open opposition to include it but for now we all know I oppose embryonic stem cell research and I support the personhood amendments. Those are the battles I am fighting right now in terms of the recognition of the personhood of an embryo.

Though IVF and abortion share the common foundation point - "this is a human life" - IVF has notable differences which place it lower down the scale of moral urgency than abortion. I have a lot of critical incident and triage training and some of that comes to mind in terms of prioritizing patients based on the severity of their condition.

In the IVF debate we don't have the suffering factor that we have with aborting children further in development, nor do we have the documented psychological fallout in many moms as we do in abortion, nor do we have the cloak of deception surrounding it that we do with abortion which results in the increase of casualties, nor do we have fully unaccountable practitioners or a cartel that profits. And so, in terms of choosing my battles, you can see where I'm focusing my energies. Yes, disregarding human life at the embryonic stage is a tragedy, but, in my view its not the same tragedy as abortion. Happy?

I don't know how much more clear I can be with you. In fact, I've gone the second mile in terms of patience with your baiting. Now it's your turn, will you answer the question… is abortion wrong?

Erin, is abortion wrong?