• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Mitt Romney Supports “Life Begins At Conception” Amendment

Will hurt him in November?


  • Total voters
    40
I'm not sure what you're looking for. The fact that a means theoretically exists does not mean that it actually has exists. Both cites indicate that, while there is insufficient data to completely rule out a post-fertilization effect, oral contraceptives are unlikely to have a post-fertilization effect.

The study you cite simply posits a mechanism by which oral contraceptives might have a post-fertilization effect. The problem is that the research your cite uses is based primarily on in vitro fertilization, which is not completely analogous to in vivo fertilization due to mitigating factors from the in vitro fertilization process.

No, the articles don't say that a post-fertilization effect is unlikely to ever occur. In fact they say that there should be such an effect that occurs sometimes, theoretically, but it hasn't been observed. This is because there's presently no viable method to test the theory ("there is no proven method to measure the loss of the preembryo prior to implantation."). I think you could only conclude that, if life begins at fertilization, and zygotes are protected by law, then it must be illegal to take a medication (birth contol pills) that sometimes terminate protected lives.
 
No, the articles don't say that a post-fertilization effect is unlikely to ever occur. In fact they say that there should be such an effect that occurs sometimes, theoretically, but it hasn't been observed. This is because there's presently no viable method to test the theory ("there is no proven method to measure the loss of the preembryo prior to implantation."). I think you could only conclude that, if life begins at fertilization, and zygotes are protected by law, then it must be illegal to take a medication (birth contol pills) that sometimes terminate protected lives.

Yes they do. From my second source: "[t]he data suggest that emergency contraceptives are unlikely to act by interfering with implantation..."

Just because they might have a contragestion effect, does not actually mean that they would be made illegal. Large dosages of Vitamin C actually have been linked with miscarriages, BPA may have an abortifacient effect, and certain strains of E. Coli have been known to increase the chances of miscarriage. However, we would not make oranges illegal, ban plastic, and force people to wash their hands under threat of attempted murder.

I know I'm being a bit hyperbolic here, but my point is that we are not certain, or even highly confident of any contragestion effects in the oral contraceptive pill. At best, we only have a theoretical mechanism. Just because such a possibility exists does not mean that defining life as beginning at conception would subsequently ban all or most forms of birth control.
 
If the 2003 state bill was a duplicate of the 2002 federal bill then what was the point of passing it again? Redunancy? Didn't the Illinoise legislature have better things to do? Apparently not if they had time for redundant bills that do nothing except make Republicans look good to their base for elections. What a waste of taxpayer money.

1. If the Born Alive Infants Protection Act was signed into law on the federal level, why is it needed in individual states?

In general, it is best to think of federal law and state law as two separate realms and to independently evaluate the adequacy of each.

To begin, most crimes of violence are governed exclusively by state law, not federal law.

Furthermore, the federal BAIPA only establishes that when the terms "person," "human being," "child," or "individual" appear in a federal law or regulation, they must be construed to include a "born-alive infant," and BAIPA provides an explicit definition of what it means to be a "born-alive infant."

The federal BAIPA applies everywhere in the U.S. But it applies only to the interpretation of federal laws and regulations. Thus, if a federal prosecutor had at hand some federal law or regulation that would be violated by putting live aborted babies in biohazard bags to suffocate, then BAIPA ensures offenders can't get off by arguing they weren't really persons/humans he was putting in the bag. But first there must be a federal law or regulation that applies to the act at all.

The same question could arise under the laws of a state: Is this entity who is outside the mother a "person" for purposes of this or that law?

Suppose a baby is born alive during an abortion, and the abortionist smothers the baby with a blanket. The district attorney charges him under the state murder or manslaughter statute, but he offers the defense that what he killed was not a "human being" but a "fetus ex utero" (or whatever). The state court would look to the state law to determine whether or not there was indeed a legal victim.

There is a recent case demonstrating that current Illinois state law regarding “born-alive infants” is inadequate and archaic.

Palatine, Illinois, resident Elizabeth Ehlert was twice convicted of murdering her newborn daughter in 1990 at delivery, alone in her bedroom. But in 2002, an Illinois appeals court determined, “[T]he single, short cry the witness [boyfriend] thought he heard, if it occurred, may have occurred before complete separation from the mother, and therefore it is not sufficient to prove live birth. Because the evidence cannot support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of live birth, we must reverse the conviction.”

According to Legal Affairs magazine, reporting on the Ehlert case in its September/October 2004 issue:

“Illinois common law holds that a baby is not a person until it has established a life independent of its mother. The separation doctrine… according to the Illinois Supreme Court, holds that "a fetus must be totally expelled from the mother and show a clear sign of independent vitality" before it can be considered to have been born.”

Added the Daily Herald on September 17, 2003, “Attorneys for Cook Co. State’s Attorney Richard Devine… said given current forensic and medical technology, the 183-year-old law no longer makes sense and should be overturned. ’What you have here is the horrific scenario in which a mother who doesn’t want her baby delivers the baby, the baby is out and still connected by the cord, and under the complete separation doctrine… she can kill that baby,’ said Peter D. Fischer, an assistant Cook Co. state’s attorney. ‘She can stab it, she can strangle it, do anything and it’s not murder. This killing of a full-term, 6-pound, 19-inch long baby is nothing, and we believe that rule cannot stand in the modern age.’”

In closing, a given act might simultaneously violate both federal and state laws. Then, both offenses could be prosecuted separately by the respective sovereigns. For example, shooting a federal judge would violate the state murder law but also a federal law against killing federal judges. If a federal statute is at issue, it could be a statute containing criminal penalties, civil penalties, or no penalties at all.

Responses to Born Alive Act Frequently Asked Questions
 
Until the bill was amended it was unconstitutional and after it was amended it was a redundant duplicate of the federal bill. The Cons who wrote the bills in the first place should be put in a looney bin.

Illinois passed it's Born Alive Infant Protection Law in 2005 after Obama had been elected to the US Senate and was no longer available to block it.
 
Yes they do. From my second source: "[t]he data suggest that emergency contraceptives are unlikely to act by interfering with implantation..."

Do you have a link to the full article? All I see is the abstract.

Just because they might have a contragestion effect, does not actually mean that they would be made illegal. Large dosages of Vitamin C actually have been linked with miscarriages, BPA may have an abortifacient effect, and certain strains of E. Coli have been known to increase the chances of miscarriage. However, we would not make oranges illegal, ban plastic, and force people to wash their hands under threat of attempted murder.

I know I'm being a bit hyperbolic here, but my point is that we are not certain, or even highly confident of any contragestion effects in the oral contraceptive pill. At best, we only have a theoretical mechanism. Just because such a possibility exists does not mean that defining life as beginning at conception would subsequently ban all or most forms of birth control.

Well, it seems there's a difference of opinion in the medical community. The conclusion of the article I linked states:

The available evidence supports the
hypothesis that when ovulation and
fertilization occur in women taking
OCs, postfertilization effects are
operative on occasion to prevent
clinically recognized pregnancy.
Physicians should understand and
respect the beliefs of patients who
consider human life to be present
and valuable from the moment of
fertilization.

Hard to come up with a clearer indication that some would find a conflict between personhood laws and birth control pills, IMO. I think it would be a matter of weeks before the same religious zealots who push these laws jumped on the opportunity to try to ban birth control pills.
 
Last edited:
1. If the Born Alive Infants Protection Act was signed into law on the federal level, why is it needed in individual states?

In general, it is best to think of federal law and state law as two separate realms and to independently evaluate the adequacy of each.

To begin, most crimes of violence are governed exclusively by state law, not federal law.

Furthermore, the federal BAIPA only establishes that when the terms "person," "human being," "child," or "individual" appear in a federal law or regulation, they must be construed to include a "born-alive infant," and BAIPA provides an explicit definition of what it means to be a "born-alive infant."

The federal BAIPA applies everywhere in the U.S. But it applies only to the interpretation of federal laws and regulations. Thus, if a federal prosecutor had at hand some federal law or regulation that would be violated by putting live aborted babies in biohazard bags to suffocate, then BAIPA ensures offenders can't get off by arguing they weren't really persons/humans he was putting in the bag. But first there must be a federal law or regulation that applies to the act at all.

The same question could arise under the laws of a state: Is this entity who is outside the mother a "person" for purposes of this or that law?

Suppose a baby is born alive during an abortion, and the abortionist smothers the baby with a blanket. The district attorney charges him under the state murder or manslaughter statute, but he offers the defense that what he killed was not a "human being" but a "fetus ex utero" (or whatever). The state court would look to the state law to determine whether or not there was indeed a legal victim.

There is a recent case demonstrating that current Illinois state law regarding “born-alive infants” is inadequate and archaic.

Palatine, Illinois, resident Elizabeth Ehlert was twice convicted of murdering her newborn daughter in 1990 at delivery, alone in her bedroom. But in 2002, an Illinois appeals court determined, “[T]he single, short cry the witness [boyfriend] thought he heard, if it occurred, may have occurred before complete separation from the mother, and therefore it is not sufficient to prove live birth. Because the evidence cannot support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of live birth, we must reverse the conviction.”

According to Legal Affairs magazine, reporting on the Ehlert case in its September/October 2004 issue:

“Illinois common law holds that a baby is not a person until it has established a life independent of its mother. The separation doctrine… according to the Illinois Supreme Court, holds that "a fetus must be totally expelled from the mother and show a clear sign of independent vitality" before it can be considered to have been born.”

Added the Daily Herald on September 17, 2003, “Attorneys for Cook Co. State’s Attorney Richard Devine… said given current forensic and medical technology, the 183-year-old law no longer makes sense and should be overturned. ’What you have here is the horrific scenario in which a mother who doesn’t want her baby delivers the baby, the baby is out and still connected by the cord, and under the complete separation doctrine… she can kill that baby,’ said Peter D. Fischer, an assistant Cook Co. state’s attorney. ‘She can stab it, she can strangle it, do anything and it’s not murder. This killing of a full-term, 6-pound, 19-inch long baby is nothing, and we believe that rule cannot stand in the modern age.’”

In closing, a given act might simultaneously violate both federal and state laws. Then, both offenses could be prosecuted separately by the respective sovereigns. For example, shooting a federal judge would violate the state murder law but also a federal law against killing federal judges. If a federal statute is at issue, it could be a statute containing criminal penalties, civil penalties, or no penalties at all.

Responses to Born Alive Act Frequently Asked Questions
What is that supposed to prove?
 
What is that supposed to prove?

That the law wasn't being considered for "redundancy" purposes as you earlier stated. Even the abortion zealot Obama didn't try that line of defense.
 
That the law wasn't being considered for "redundancy" purposes as you earlier stated. Even the abortion zealot Obama didn't try that line of defense.
The bill defined partial birth abortion and so did the federal bill. Thats all the Republican bills ever do is DEFINE!! Who cares if Obama didn't vote for the conservatives definition of partial birth abortion? I certainly don't. After all, he's not running for a state office as a far right fundamentalist zealot.

Aside from "defining", the other thing most of these anti-abortion bills seem to have in common is an exception clause that says, "except to save the life or health of the mother." If the bills didn't have that exception clause then it would be unconstitutional. The definition for life and health is so broadly defined as to include physical, biological, psycological and emotional health.
 
Last edited:
That the law wasn't being considered for "redundancy" purposes as you earlier stated. Even the abortion zealot Obama didn't try that line of defense.
The law was meant to get the Democrats on the record as voting against an abortion bill so the Republicans would have something to use against them during an election. Thats all it is.
 
Last edited:
I'm new here to this political forum so I want to say hello first.

To answer the question I don't think it will hurt him at all. I do vote on a few stances: Military experience, a track record or history to look back on and see who the person really is, and lastly does the person feel strongly in favor of the constitution. Pro-life is a very small factor unless I find the person is in support of partial birth abortion which I am dead set against and would never vote for anyone with a track record in that direction. I have the belief life begins once the sperm fertilizes the egg. That is my belief and I understand it may not be others.

Good to meet all of you

Suburban
 
This aptly sums up what a joke the GOP has become. There are many other feasible issues that need solving in this country. Mitt's abortion amendment would never be realized. He's just catering to his party's ideological beliefs.
 
I'm new here to this political forum so I want to say hello first.

To answer the question I don't think it will hurt him at all. I do vote on a few stances: Military experience, a track record or history to look back on and see who the person really is, and lastly does the person feel strongly in favor of the constitution. Pro-life is a very small factor unless I find the person is in support of partial birth abortion which I am dead set against and would never vote for anyone with a track record in that direction. I have the belief life begins once the sperm fertilizes the egg. That is my belief and I understand it may not be others.

Good to meet all of you

Suburban
Nice to meet you too, suburban. Nice theory. However, life is a continuum and can't be created from non life. The sperm and the egg also have life with the potential to form human beings. I think that life is more a process rather than a singular event that begins at conception. And too, the theory that life begins at conception is flawed because it doesn't account for human clones or explain how two individuals can come from one fertilized egg.

Nobody is more supportive of partial birth abortions than the people who parade around with posters and props of mutilated stillborn fetusus for their political agenda.
 
Last edited:
I have the belief life begins once the sperm fertilizes the egg. That is my belief and I understand it may not be others.

Science has proven you wrong

Life began millions of years ago.

Some people believe the world is flat. Science has proven them wrong too.
 
The bill defined partial birth abortion and so did the federal bill. Thats all the Republican bills ever do is DEFINE!! Who cares if Obama didn't vote for the conservatives definition of partial birth abortion? I certainly don't. After all, he's not running for a state office as a far right fundamentalist zealot.

Aside from "defining", the other thing most of these anti-abortion bills seem to have in common is an exception clause that says, "except to save the life or health of the mother." If the bills didn't have that exception clause then it would be unconstitutional. The definition for life and health is so broadly defined as to include physical, biological, psycological and emotional health.

This bill didn't deal with partial birth abortion at all. It's called the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. It was written to protect babies that survived an abortion attempt. A baby that survived outside of the womb after an abortion had failed to take its life. Obama voted against a law that would have made it mandatory to do what was needed to save the baby's life instead of abandoning it until it died.
 
This bill didn't deal with partial birth abortion at all. It's called the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. It was written to protect babies that survived an abortion attempt. A baby that survived outside of the womb after an abortion had failed to take its life. Obama voted against a law that would have made it mandatory to do what was needed to save the baby's life instead of abandoning it until it died.
It was another redundant bill. Illinoise already had a law stating that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support." Again, the whole point of re-introducing bills such as this is to get Democrats on record as voting against it in order to use it against them during an election. Surprise, it's election time and like clockwork here you are talking about the same old redundant anti-abortion bills.
 
Back
Top Bottom