The inalienable right to life possessed by every human being is present from the moment of initial formation, and all human beings shall be entitled to the equal protection of persons under the law.
The Personhood Debates
Debate 7: Toe the Moderate Line
Bill:
I have now verified three clear strikes against Mitt Romney. The first, of course, is his implementation of government run health care. The second is his public statement of opposition to the human life amendment (an anti-abortion amendment that is one of the planks of the Republican platform). The third is his plan to increase taxes on everyone making more than $200,000 per year. Healthcare, abortion and taxes - the only way that sounds presidential is if you are a Democrat.
Tom:
Way off target. For a party that likes to talk about states rights, there is a lot of misplaced venom toward a governor of a very liberal state who sought a health care solution for his state - and his state alone - according to the desires of his electorate, and while maintaining private insurance as opposed to a government takeover. With regard to the human life amendment, I'd like to see the actual text.
Bill:
Here is the question about the human life amendment and Romney's answer:
"Section Five of the 14th Amendment expressly authorizes the Congress by appropriate legislation to enforce the guarantees of due process and equal protection contained in the amendment's first section.
Now, as someone who believes in the inherent and equal dignity of all members of the human family including the child in the womb, would you as president propose to Congress appropriate legislation pursuant to the 14th Amendment to protect human life in all stages and conditions?
ROMNEY: Let me tell you what my orientation would be, which is I would like to appoint to the Supreme Court justices who believe in following the constitution as opposed to legislating from the bench.
I would like to see that Supreme Court return to the states the responsibility to determining laws related to abortion, as opposed to having the federal Supreme Court from the bench telling America and all the states how they have to do it. I think that's the appropriate course.
Now, is there a constitutional path to have the Congress say we're going to push aside the decision of the Supreme Court and we instead are going to step forward and return to the states this power or put in place our own views on abortion.
That would create obviously a constitutional crisis. Could that happen in this country? Could there be circumstances where that might occur? I think it's reasonable that something of that nature might happen someday. That's not something I would precipitate.
What I would look to do would be appoint people to the Supreme Court that will follow strictly the constitution as opposed to legislating from the bench. I believe that we must be a nation of laws."
If you were to follow the link below and read the transcript from CNN, you would see that every other candidate that was asked this question replied in the affirmative. It was only Mitt Romney who said no and then rather ignorantly attempted to explain that a constitutional amendment could create a constitutional crisis. Here's the link:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1109/05/se.01.html
Tom:
So essentially you take issue with Romney being the only candidate to respond from the realm of excutive branch reality rather than promoting a fantasy initiative which couldn't pass Supreme Court muster. Romney is right. The key is flipping the bench.
Bill:
You are mistaken. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over constitutional amendments. Think about it for a moment. What kind of decision could they come to if a human life amendment was challenged? Could they rule that an amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional?
Tom:
If your constitutional amendment is written in any fashion similar to what you posted above, you won't have to worry about the United States Supreme Court striking it down, because you will never get the requisite number of states to ratify it in the first place. You wrote:
"Now, as someone who believes in the inherent and equal dignity of all members of the human family including the child in the womb, would you as president propose to Congress appropriate legislation pursuant to the 14th Amendment to protect human life in all stages and conditions?"
Unless there is more that you are not sharing, protecting "human life in all stages and conditions" doesn't sound like it offers exceptions for key elements which would be required to garner sufficient public support for passage. Nothing in that language suggests exceptions for victims of rape or incest. And it is completely unclear how one would interpret a scenario where a woman might have to choose between her own life and the life of her unborn child.
If you have further light to shed, I'm interested in seeing it.
Bill:
I have much more light to shed on this topic. Thank you for asking. I am the founder of an organization seeking to pass an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama which would end abortion in that state. You can download a free booklet explaining the amendment and answering several frequently asked questions from the link below. If you still have questions after reading the booklet, please feel free to ask them. I want to make certain that I have an answer for every possible challenge this amendment may face.
http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/about-personhood.html
Tom:
Rather than read a booklet, I just want a straight answer. Does the language of the item Romney didn't endorse include exclusions for victims of rape and incest, or if the mother's life is in peril? Yes or no would suffice. Yes or no, with extra supporting commentary, would also be nice.
Bill:
It's only a 16 page booklet, and it is designed for quick reading. Here is a relevant quote from page 13:
"A life of the mother exception to any abortion law would be a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because other classes of people are not given that same kind of exception. For example, there is no exception to the laws against murder which would allow a doctor to kill one member of a set of conjoined twins in order to save the life of the other. The doctor is legally required to attempt to save the lives of both twins until such a time as one of them dies in spite of his efforts, and then he is to continue to devote all of his energy to saving the surviving twin regardless of which one it is. The same application can be made to the unborn child and the mother. The goal of the law in such situations must always be to save both."
Tom:
Thank you for answering my question, Bill. This quote would make passage of such an amendment absolutely impossible. Anyone who makes allegiance to this proposal as written a litmus test for political support is dooming himself to disappointment and potentially doing more harm than good by undermining support of rational conservatives and helping the party primarily responsible for the appointment of judges which have enabled the deaths of tens of millions of unborn. I consider myself to be pro-life. I do not believe abortions of convenience should be legal. But by this strict definition, I can only imagine that there are those in your camp which would see me as pro-choice. I am reminded of a quote from Roman Catholic Archbishop Charles L. Chaput in his book, "Render Unto Caesar":
"What if Catholics face an election where both major candidates are 'pro-choice'? What should they do then? Here's the answer: They should remember that the 'perfect' can easily become the enemy of the 'good.' The fact that no ideal or even normally acceptable candidate exists in an election does not absolve us from taking part in it. As Catholic citizens, we need to work for the greatest good."
I believe that some people in their quixotic struggle for what they deem the "perfect" candidate who mirrors their pro-life firmness without any exceptions whatsoever is going to find that the good they could have accomplished is harder to achieve because of the insistence upon perfect. And in the process, they actually aid the very party most responsible for perpetuating the very harm they believe they are fighting. To repeat Chaput, we should remember that the "perfect" can easily become the enemy of the "good."
What in effect you are arguing is that you would rather a million or more innocent unborn children perish every year while agitating for an outright ban on all abortions regardless of circumstance, than you would have perhaps a couple of hundred or so (even a thousand or so) die every year which might fit a narrow exclusion for rape, incest, or the peril of a mother's life. If that doesn't outright define allowing the perfect to become the enemy of the good, I don't know what does.
Bill:
No, I am arguing something entirely different. I am arguing that unborn children are distinct, individual human beings and that they are endowed by God Himself with an unalienable right to life. Are you arguing that those children who are the product of rape or incest are not really human beings with a right to life?
Tom:
I am arguing that there comes a point where one's religious zeal overruns what is reasonable for a pluralistic society. It is one thing to tell someone who is sexually irresponsible that they already made their choice when hopping into bed with someone. It is another thing entirely to tell someone who has been raped that they are required by law to carry a pregnancy. And it is overwhelmingly another thing to demand that a woman whose life is in peril be required by law to continue a pregnancy which could kill her. Those are issues people are absolutely welcome to explore with their respective parishioners in their churches, but which cannot rationally be forced upon the entire population. You will NEVER garner political support for such an extreme view, and thus your perfect will become the enemy of the good and enable millions of innocent unborn children to be slaughtered when one's support for good candidates is withdrawn in expectation of a perfect one to come along. And since the president himself never has power over this, it is the height of ignorance to place such a litmus test upon a candidate for president rather than dealing with the multitude of House and Senate members, and state legislators.
Bill:
Okay, so I should keep my religious views to myself. Got it. Now, I just have one little question nagging at me about doing that. You see, my religious view is that it would be wrong to kill a two year old child who happened to be the product of either rape or incest. Is that also a view that I should keep to myself, or is it okay to pass laws saying that no one can kill a two year old child?
Tom:
I believe we have an obligation to share our religious views. By no means should you have to hide them under a bush. But those withholding support from politicians who would work to reduce abortions from millions to a handful, further empowering those who prefer slaughtering millions, are actually harming their own cause. And to employ an example of a two-year old versus an unborn child only places yourself at an extreme which alienates the very people whose support is indispensable in saving millions.
Bill:
Well, you see, that's where we disagree. I do not see any difference between a two year old child and an unborn child. They are both distinct, individual human beings or persons with an inalienable right to life. The booklet that I linked above provides proof of that fact from the Bible, the law, the courts and science. If it is wrong to kill a two year old for being the product of rape or incest, then it is wrong to kill an unborn child for the same reasons.
Stefani:
One must STAND for those issues of which they feel heart felt conviction. LIFE is granted and man has no right to determine which lives will be lived and which will be eliminated. Abortion is a travesty on woman and responsible for many of the ills we are facing as a society now. The idea that America would foist thier birthcontrol initiatives upon other nations and provide funds for an outfit bent on the destruction of the Negro race ie., Planned Parenthood will be the final demise of what once was a great nation. ABORTION HURTS WOMEN! ALL WOMEN!
Tom, why would you argue to hold the status quo with RINOs?
Tom:
Frankly, Stefani, I've seen nothing in your objections to what you call RINOs which is truly a dealbreaker for most conservatives. The vast majority of pro-life conservatives grasp that one cannot be successful forcing an outright ban on all abortions regardless of cause. The vast majority of pro-life conservatives recognize that issues pertaining to rape and a mother's life cross the line into a family decision rather than an intrusive government mandate. You're welcome to align yourself with what amounts to an ultra-extreme position. Bill seems content to stake his claim to that position as well. But you have nothing to gain by it and everything to lose. And the real losers are the innocent unborn when one is so inflexible as to de facto support the pro-abortion party by withholding one's support from those who would ban over 95% of all abortions in this country.
Bill:
Let me ask you this, Tom. If our current laws allowed people to kill their children at any time prior to the age of five, would you support a candidate who openly opposes an amendment to the Constitution which would make it illegal to kill children at any age?
Tom:
Here on earth, people tend to distinguish between such goalposts as "conception," "first trimester," "second trimester," "third trimester," "birth," and everything after birth. It is the height of political irrelevency and absurdity to introduce five-year-olds into the equation. You lose 99% of humanity when you do so.
Personally I adopt the notion that life begins at conception, and thus I oppose ALL abortions of convenience.
But because we do not live in a perfect world, I recognize there are unfortunate situations where society must decide what to do when confronted by pregnancies resulting from rape, or when a mother is likely to die by carrying a baby to term.
Unfortunately a mother's life can be jeopardized at any point in a pregnancy, so I would not place a timeline on when an abortion might become illegal for these very limited circumstances.
With regard to rape, drugs now exist which can thwart a pregnancy from the outset if a rape victim wants to make sure she does not conceive as the result of a criminal act. I think it is reasonable for society to make a determination at what point terminating a pregnancy resulting from rape is no longer permitted. But we are a long way from negotiating that particular element.
The fact of the matter remains that the issue of abortion should never have been decided by federal judges on behalf of the entire nation to begin with. The question needs to be restored to the respective states to deal with as they wish. And to the extent that a supermajority of states can be assembled to amend the constitution to restrict abortion at the national level, they are certainly welcome to draft legislation which they feel has a shot of passing.
When it comes to presidents and presidential candidates, the only substantive power they have over the abortion issue is the appointment of judges which are of a temperament to uphold the 10th amendment. Everything else is just political grandstanding.
Bill:
It is not irrelevant at all to introduce children of any age into this discussion. You have yourself stated that you believe that life begins at conception. That means that the baby in the womb is just as much a human being as the two year old child. You also claim that it should be legal to kill an unborn child who happens to be the product of rape or incest and tha society can determine when that should no longer be legal. Since the unborn child is just as much a human being as the two year old, would you say that society can determine to allow a mother to wait until after her child is born to see if she can raise that child in spite of the memories of the rape and then kill the child at some point prior to five years of age if those memories are too traumatic?
Tom:
Just because life BEGINS at conception, doesn't mean it is in a state comparable to a fully-birthed child. It has the potential to become such, which is why it is to be valued. But unless we evolve into a full-blown theocracy, our laws are going to reflect the reality of the world we live in today. It is one thing to tell an atheist woman that our values reject her aborting a baby because she failed to live a chaste life or her birth control methods failed. One can make the case that she made her choice about pregnancy when choosing to have sex. It is an entirely different thing, however, to tell an atheist woman that she will be compelled by law to carry a child which resulted from a violent criminal act. And likewise it is an entirely different thing to tell an atheist woman that she may be sentenced to death because a complication of her pregnancy has a serious chance or imperiling her life. You will simply NEVER attract a large enough percentage of the population to come around to this extreme point of view at ANY time between now and the Second Coming of Christ. It's not. going. to. happen. So the choice is really up to you. Support the serial abortionists by withdrawing support from conservatives who fall short of your impossible extremist line in the sand. Or save millions of unborn babies by supporting those who grasp the political reality that there must be some small measure of exception for the rare cases where a woman is impregnated by a rapist, or her life is in true jeopardy through no fault of her own. By choosing the former, you have actually adopted a pro-choice position far more deadly than that which you agitate against.
Bill:
Now, this is why I wanted you read my free Personhood Booklet. That booklet provides solid proof that there is no significant difference between a child in the womb and a two year old. My position on abortion is based on that proof. What proof do you have that the unborn child is not comparable to a two year old?
Tom:
What proof do you have that your radical position isn't responsible for millions of abortions?
Bill:
That's easy. The vast majority of elected officials since 1973 have held to your position not mine. The blood of millions of babies is on their hands. Now, do you or do you not have any proof that an unborn child is not comparable to a two year old?
Tom:
You're not living in reality, Bill. There is legitimate support for efforts to restrict abortion in America. There is virtually zero support for any effort to outlaw the practice universally regardless of cause. By opposing those who would vastly restrict the practice, you unwittingly support those responsible for expanding abortion.
Bill:
I would argue that you are not living in reality. There is legitimate proof that there is no significant difference between an unborn child and a two year old. There is absolutely zero support for any claim that abortion is anything less than the intentional killing of a distinct, individual human being or person. By holding to a position that unborn children can be killed just because they happen to be the product of rape or incest, you are knowingly opposing the truth and supporting a lie.
Furthermore, my position is fully supported by the Scriptures. I have both read and proven that if God be for me then none can stand against me. I have also read and proven that there is no restraint unto the Lord to save by many or by few. I have seen God work too many times to give up on the truth just because the fickle winds of public opinion may be blowing in some other direction.
Tom:
What's hysterical is observing the existence of a religious/political realm so radically extreme that my own very pro-life positions on abortion (which regularly cause liberals fits) are considered embracing infanticide. But if the election ends up being decided narrowly in a state where the current Infanticist-in-Chief maintains his grip on power, and subsequently is able to appoint additional Supreme Court judges which ensure another quarter century of Roe v Wade, and this could have been avoided if not for all-or-nothing-extremists on the right, then those millions of additional babies die at your hands.
Bill:
But you are embracing infanticide. I have proven that, and you have provided no defense. There is no significant difference between a child in the womb and a two year old, and intentionally killing either one would be infanticide. You have endorsed the intentional killing of children in the womb; therefore, you have embraced infanticide.
Tom:
Political reality is that we will not be able to choose between a million abortions or no abortions. This is not an available option, no matter how much you want to kick and scream. America is a democracy, not a theocracy, and there is no possibility of a Christian theocracy between now and the Second Coming of Christ. So given this reality, the choice before us is a million abortions or a handful of abortions. No other options exist in the foreseeable American political landscape. It is your call as to whether you see millions of abortions as being preferable to handfuls of abortions. If you draw no distinction, then enjoy your millions of abortions until such time that rational centrists and conservatives are successful in severely restricting abortion, because you will be party to perpetuating the grand scale rather than doing what is within your grasp to minimize it while waiting for that perfect future day.
Bill:
You are mistaken on two accounts. First, America is not a democracy. She is a republic (just like ancient Israel, by the way), and republics are ruled by law not by the whims of the populace. Second, the option of no abortions is very much a possibility. If you had taken time to read my booklet, you would have seen that the justices of Roe v. Wade explained very clearly how to legitimately outlaw abortion. They stated specifically that “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.”
Tom:
Well, I suppose as long as we're getting technical, America is a Democratic Republic. But most people just go with democracy even if they know it is more complicated than that. And there is simply no basis in reality to believe that America would ever go for an outright ban on abortion which would close any loophole for preserving the life of a mother due to complications. It's just not happening. Even the majority of your most ardent pro-life conservatives won't tread that ground.
Bill:
Once again, you are mistaken. The personhood movement is gaining significant ground in several states. In fact, the state of Mississippi will be holding an election this November to vote on adding a Personhood Amendment to their Constitution, and Alabama already has a law stating that personhood begins at conception. The Alabama law contains a phrase stating that nothing in that law is to be construed as prohibiting an abortion that is otherwise legal, but I have already spoken within several attorneys and judges who agree that that provision is unconstitutional under the fifth and fourteenth amendments, and I am even now preparing a law suit against the state to demand the removal of that provision. The idea that Christians are somehow limited in their ability to change the course of this nation is wholly unfounded.
By the way, the phrase "Democratic Republic" is an oxymoron. The two terms are completely incompatible. Democracy simply refers to a majority rule, whereas a republic refers to the rule of law. The two are antithetical to each other. I would recommend that you study the writings of our founding fathers to determine why they vehemently rejected democracy and chose to establish a republic instead.
Tom:
Here's your problem. Pro-lifers generally will like the idea of a identifying a baby as a person from the point of conception. Until one exploits such legislation to put a woman's life at risk. And then your support goes into the ether.
Here's a chart with the results of a recent Gallup survey: http://engagefamilyminute.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Gallup-Poll1.gif .
Summarizing the above:
69% of pro-life Americans believe abortion should be legal if a woman's life is in danger.
68% of pro-life Americans believe abortion should be legal if a woman's health is in danger.
59% of pro-life Americans believe abortion should be legal if pregnancy results from rape or incest.
The rest of the data is readily available at the link.
Keep in mind that the above stats are based on PRO-LIFE Americans. The same stats for Pro-Abortion Americans may be found at the same link.
Bottom line is that any amendment banning all abortion period without regard for circumstances is a complete non-starter and requires self-delusion or drug/alcohol abuse to believe otherwise.
Bill:
Would you classify the belief that with God all things are possible as a self-delusion?
Tom:
Some things are going to have to wait for the Second Coming of Christ. In all likelihood, this is one of them. Is there any part of the Bible which suggests to you that global moral conditions will IMPROVE prior to His coming as opposed to worsening?
Furthermore, we are talking about the 2012 presidential election and whether or not your objection to Romney on pro-life grounds is a rational one based on present national conditions. I would submit that it is irrational.
Bill:
"The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." (I Corinthians 3:19)
I would rather do what I know to be the right thing than what you imagine to be the smart thing.
Tom:
The right thing is preventing a Democrat from appointing Supreme Court judges. Everything else is mindless wandering through the political desert.
Bill:
Really? We've been following that plan for the past 38 years. How has that worked out for us? How many abortions have been prevented by voting for candidates who think that it is sometimes okay to kill a baby?
Tom:
We simply need more judges on our side.
Bill:
Hmmm... So after 38 years (and more than 53 million abortions) of following the path that you advocate, we still haven't succeeded in appointing enough pro-life judges to overturn Roe v. Wade. When was the last time that you reviewed the appointments of the Supreme Court Justices? In the years of 2005 - 2009, do you know how many of the sitting Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Democratic presidents?
Tom:
Congratulations for assuming those who disagree with you are ignorant!
Bill:
There's nothing wrong with being ignorant about something. I myself am ignorant of a great many things. I'm just curious as to how much knowledge you have about your own claims.
However, since you have decided to take offense at my question, I will assume that you already know that during that time there were only 2 sitting Supreme Court Justices that had been appointed by a Democratic president. That means that we had 7 Justices who had been appointed by Republicans. Now, let me ask you another question. If all we need is more Republican Supreme Court appointments in order to overturn Roe v. Wade, then why was it not overturned sometime between 2005 and 2009?
Tom:
Any examination of the current court can answer that question for you. I'm done.
Bill:
Very well, then. I'll just conclude by explaining that there is only one reason that Roe v. Wade has not been overturned. Roe v. Wade has not been overturned because the decision of the court in Roe was the correct decision. Their decision was that a law banning abortion would be constitutional if the unborn children were considered to be persons under the protection of the fifth and fourteenth amendments. They found that Texas did not consider children to be persons under the protection of the fifth and fourteenth amendment. Therefore, the Texas law against abortion was ruled unconstitutional.
Do you know why the court found that the Texas did not consider children to be persons under the protection of the fifth and fourteenth amendments? Because Texas had an exception to their abortion ban which permitted abortions for cases of rape and incest and when necessary to save the life of the mother. The very exceptions which you are asking us to embrace were responsible for the Roe decision in the first place.
"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (Fourteenth) Amendment ... When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command?" [ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)]