OMG! I had not heard of this until this month's issue of Progressive . .

[CrispyQ]

The Human Life Amendment -- oh man, this is some scary shit.

http://www.nchla.org/ National Committee for a Human Life Amendment

snip...

In the great civil rights struggle to secure the right to life for all, Archbishop John Roach, testifying on behalf of the Catholic Bishops, expressed the guiding vision:

"We are committed to full legal recognition of the right to life of the unborn child, and will not rest in our efforts until society respects the inherent worth and dignity of every member of the human race."

November 5, 1981 Statement before the
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution

===============

And from a more reasonable site:

http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/essays/hla.html

snip...

The question "when does life begin?" can have a myriad of answers. Medical, biological, religious, biblical, philosophical, historical, and/or legal arguments can be used to defend or to defeat the idea that life begins at conception, when the heart begins to beat, when the first nerve impulses are present, when brain waves are present, when the 5 senses are fully developed, at quickening (that magical moment when the mother first senses motion of the fetus), and when the fetus becomes viable outside of the mother's womb. For me, part of the answer lies in the answer to the question "when does life end?". Life ends when either the body or the brain cannot sustain itself. While technology can mimic many of the biological functions of life, independent life with a fully functional, vibrant individual ceases when life is not present. Why then are we not consistent and use this argument for defining when life begins? Life then begins when it becomes capable of sustaining itself outside of the mother's womb.

The notion that interference in the creation of life is an affront to God also deserves comment. Many families have children only through artificial insemination, drugs and surgery for infertility treatment, and in-vitro fertilization. Many healthy children who may have otherwise never have been born alive are here today only due to prenatal care. These medical procedures certainly interfere in the conception and birth of individuals. Are we to use the "pro-life " argument that interference in the creation of life is an affront to God and so to outlaw these medical procedures? Is it any less interference in God's plan for life to treat a child for pneumonia, to treat an adult for a heart condition, to give a diabetic a daily injection of insulin? Would pro-lifers reject life giving medical treatment on the grounds that it is interference in God's plan for life and consequently it is an affront to God? I find the "pro-life" position regarding interference in God's plan for life utterly inconsistent with and repeatedly contradicted by their willingness to support medical intervention in the daily struggle for life. Their argument is utilitarian and specious and should be rejected. The HLA must be repudiated as fraudulent policy based on inconsistent logic.

===========

First corporations get personhood rights & now they want to give those rights to a fertilized egg? These are twisted, perverted world views!

[Justin54B20L]

1. My problem with the whole abortion is murder/RTL issue is this...

I look at it through the perception of the Law. The law tends to be very clear on unnatural termination of life or the harming thereof. Given a right to life law, other laws would have to be directly applied to this. Example:

Given: Right to Life law that states that life begins at conception and that the willful termination, abortion, of said life would constitute a charge of murder. (Technically it would be a 1st degree murder, so a sentence of Death or life in prison would be applicable.)

Further interpretations by the law as it stands:

Any miscarriage would have to be construed as manslaughter, that is the unintentional termination of life.

Drinking and/or smoking during pregnancy(which you shouldn't be doing anyways) would be negligence and/or child endangerment.

A women who runs a way, say from an abusive relationship, could be charged by the father as kidnapping.

These are just a few examples of what I can come up with off the top of my head. Unfortunately politicians don't think too far ahead, or for some, think at all.

[riverwalker]

2. well, not "every member of the human race"

"We are committed to full legal recognition of the right to life of the unborn child, and will not rest in our efforts until society respects the inherent worth and dignity of every member of the human race."

Someone please explain the 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians (including 46,000 children) Until the anti-abortion people are anti-death and anti-war as well, they can get out of my face. Phoney hypocrites.