Jump to content
IGNORED

Gingrich supports the Personhood movement?


MerryHappy

Recommended Posts

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/1 ... 49615.html

Three Republican presidential candidates, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Sen. Rick Santorum (Penn.), and Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), signed a vague pledge sponsored by

Personhood USA affirming their support for an anti-abortion, "human life" amendment to the Constitution.

Personhood USA, the group behind the controversial Mississippi initiative that gives undeveloped zygotes full legal personhood rights and could outlaw some forms of birth control and in vitro fertilization, believes that life begins at the moment of fertilization. Gingrich distanced himself from the personhood movement earlier this month when he declared that life begins at implantation, not fertilization, which is the more mainstream view held by most opponents of abortion rights.

But the pledge does not go into detail about when life begins, or what a "human life" amendment would look like. It simply asks the candidates to proclaim that "every human being is created in the image and likeness of God, and is endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right to life."

Personhood USA said the pledge was an opportunity for candidates to clarify their positions on fetal personhood, which would ban abortions even in cases of rape, incest and where the health of the mother is at stake.

“There has been much speculation as to the candidate’s positions this election cycle,†said Personhood USA Legal Analyst Gualberto Garcia Jones. “This is an opportunity for the candidates to demonstrate their conviction as a President who will uphold the right to life of every person no matter their age or the circumstances of their creation.â€

Bachmann, who co-sponsored legislation called the Life At Conception Act in January, criticized Gingrich's claim that life begins at implantation, insinuating that he was not a strong enough anti-abortion advocate to win conservatives' votes.

"While Newt has presumptively declared himself the nominee, I believe the people of Iowa and all Americans will reject any candidate who fails to understand when life begins and that protecting it is the top priority for conservatives," she said in a statement to HuffPost. "I'll always side with life."

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has not signed the Personhood USA pledge, which conflicts with his recent statement that personhood amendments should be left to the states.

Dawn Laguens, executive vice president for the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said on Wednesday that the fact that three candidates had signed the pledge shows that they are "out of touch" on women's health issues.

"As media have reported, these so-called ‘personhood’ initiatives are an extreme government intrusion into the private lives of women and families and could outlaw in vitro fertilization, common forms of birth control, and cancer treatment for pregnant women," she said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, there's NOTHING more important than protecting zygotes! Who cares about the economy? About jobs? About health care for people who will literally die without it? About education for children? About assistance for people who will become homeless and hungry without it? No, nothing is more important than protecting a potential prehshus bayybee!!!11!!111!!!eleventy!!!

/sarcasm

Oh gods, that hurt to type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even when the mother's health is at stake!?!?!? Does that mean they want women with ectopic pregnancies to die? Never mind, I answered my own question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even when the mother's health is at stake!?!?!? Does that mean they want women with ectopic pregnancies to die? Never mind, I answered my own question.

We're supposed to take their word that they'd be reasonable about those situations when they arise.

Uh-huh. No thanks. I'll take a supreme court ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even when the mother's health is at stake!?!?!? Does that mean they want women with ectopic pregnancies to die? Never mind, I answered my own question.

Yep. Cuz somehow the unborn child's life is more precious than the life of the human being who's been around for whatever number of years. That's what gets me about this whole thing with these fundies... How can you say a child's life is more important than your own?? I mean, if we're talking about someone holding a gun to your child's head while you're there watching, and you offer to sacrifice your life for the child's, that's one thing. But a baby who hasnt even made it into the world is more important? Let the woman die in childbirth like it's the freaking middle ages??

It's plain ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So will they be checking all menstruating women monthly to make sure they didn't have a fertilized egg that did not attach? How much money will be spent investigating miscarriages to make sure that a woman did not "Intentionally commit fetacide?" Women's prisons will fill up with women who are caught miscarrying with no scientific explanation, or for drinking a cup of coffee or a glass of wine if she COULD conceive.

Oh, it starts with the little things....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. Cuz somehow the unborn child's life is more precious than the life of the human being who's been around for whatever number of years. That's what gets me about this whole thing with these fundies... How can you say a child's life is more important than your own?? I mean, if we're talking about someone holding a gun to your child's head while you're there watching, and you offer to sacrifice your life for the child's, that's one thing. But a baby who hasnt even made it into the world is more important? Let the woman die in childbirth like it's the freaking middle ages??

It's plain ridiculous.

:text-+1:

My husband & I are in agreement, if God forbid anything happens during my pregnancy where my life might be endangered and we'd have to choice between me or Little Baby Nothing, my life comes first. If we had to make that choice, it would not be me becoming a martyr and him being a widowed single father. I remember a while ago, I was in in my 20's and visiting a friend. Her brother and his girlfriend were also over, and somehow the topic of abortion came up, and Girlfriend point-blank asked Brother if they were having a baby together and there were complications and he had to make the decision (in this hypothetical, she was unconscious) to save either her or the baby, who would he save. Without batting an eye, he said he'd save the baby. Oooooh, she was so angry with him!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:text-+1:

My husband & I are in agreement, if God forbid anything happens during my pregnancy where my life might be endangered and we'd have to choice between me or Little Baby Nothing, my life comes first. If we had to make that choice, it would not be me becoming a martyr and him being a widowed single father. I remember a while ago, I was in in my 20's and visiting a friend. Her brother and his girlfriend were also over, and somehow the topic of abortion came up, and Girlfriend point-blank asked Brother if they were having a baby together and there were complications and he had to make the decision (in this hypothetical, she was unconscious) to save either her or the baby, who would he save. Without batting an eye, he said he'd save the baby. Oooooh, she was so angry with him!

I'd be angry too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even when the mother's health is at stake!?!?!? Does that mean they want women with ectopic pregnancies to die? Never mind, I answered my own question.

What really baffles me in this case is that the embryo dies, too, and how is it pro-life to support two 'deaths' rather than one? They make the argument that the embryo is a person, but if there were two people who would both die unless I murdered one of them, I would actively kill one rather than passively kill two. Why? Because I value life.

I disagree with any anti-choice argument, but outside of when the woman's life is at stake I can usually at least understand the reasoning behind it. Not so with this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USA is a scary, scary place to be these days.

You can say that again. I'm always afraid the fundies are going to take over. I know they are a minority, but they can attract non-fundies with some of their ideas. Like many in the Pro-Life movement may be normal, sane people... except that they think an unborn baby's life is paramount to the life of the woman who's been on the planet longer. This is one of those issues where someone who seems perfectly normal becomes absolutely illogical. Like when bringing up religion or politics. It can quickly change the mood of a room when you suddenly realize where everyone stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My husband & I are in agreement, if God forbid anything happens during my pregnancy where my life might be endangered and we'd have to choice between me or Little Baby Nothing, my life comes first.

Oh yes. The future Mr. Vixen and I have a similar agreement, especially since I have an already-born child who needs me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked my husband whether he would save me or a baby, and he was confused because he thought I meant a real live baby, specifically our one year old. When I told him an UNBORN baby, he was like, "why would I choose some kid I have never met over my wife?"

He's a kinda pro-life, non-practicing/questioning Roman Catholic, fwiw--a traditional family values guy who should be the Republican party's main target. I think the conservatives will lose a lot of their voting base if they support this, but I think they have already lost the moderate-right, like my husband. All they have left are the extremists, let the pandering begin.

They don't even have a chance with people like my husband voting for Obama, but that is the situation they are creating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked my husband whether he would save me or a baby, and he was confused because he thought I meant a real live baby, specifically our one year old. When I told him an UNBORN baby, he was like, "why would I choose some kid I have never met over my wife?"

He's a kinda pro-life, non-practicing/questioning Roman Catholic, fwiw--a traditional family values guy who should be the Republican party's main target. I think the conservatives will lose a lot of their voting base if they support this, but I think they have already lost the moderate-right, like my husband. All they have left are the extremists, let the pandering begin.

They don't even have a chance with people like my husband voting for Obama, but that is the situation they are creating.

Your husband sounds like me some years back. I was a republican who felt like the party had left me. Now I'm a full-on liberal, but the GOP probably could have kept me in the fold for a lot longer if the tent had remained as big as it used to seem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.