Fetus Set To 'Testify' In Favor Of Ohio Anti-Abortion Bill

A Christian pro-life group in Ohio is touting their plan to coordinate testimony of a nine-week old fetus -- the "youngest to ever testify" -- in favor of an anti-abortion bill.

"For the first time in a committee hearing, legislators will be able to see and hear the beating heart of a baby in the womb--just like the ones the Heartbeat Bill will protect," Janet (Folger) Porter, President of the group Faith2Action, said in a release.

In February, Ohio state Rep. Lynn Wachtmann (R) introduced a piece of legislation that would forbid abortions in any case in which the fetus had a detectable heartbeat, a development that can come as early as 18 days into a pregnancy.

"When a heartbeat of a baby is detected, that baby will be protected from abortion," Wachtmann told the Hudson Hub Times last month. "It's really as simple as that. ... As technology improves in medicine, as it continually does, that protection will move closer and closer to conception, which is I think for many of us what our ultimate goal of protecting life is."

ThinkProgress reports that the unlikelihood of the bill's success hasn't discouraged Faith2Action or the proposal's supporters:

Despite the probable failure of Porter's efforts, her sideshow has secured 50 cosponsors. But as NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio's executive director Kellie Copeland told ThinkProgress, "the committee won't hear from women who have made the profoundly personal decision to terminate a pregnancy." "The politicians behind this bill refuse to acknowledge what Ohioans understand: Every woman's situation is different, and it's unacceptable for anti-choice lawmakers to think they should make the personal, private decisions that belong to women and their doctors."

The testimony, which is set to take place Wednesday, will consist of projecting an ultrasound image of the pregnant woman's uterus onto a screen in the courtroom. The image will also show the fetus' heartbeat in color.

Comments

[Right2voice]

02:05 AM on 03/06/2011

@ Dissident Dexter..

You said: "Many people think that a human being is created at the time of conception but this belief is not supported by the bible.... According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath."

No where in the Bible is there support for this assertion.

Genesis 2:7 7 Then the LORD God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

First, this is obviously a unique situation... the Bible doesn't claim that we ALL were formed this way. This passage is specifically refering to the very first man, a SPECIFIC man ("THE man became a living being").. Adam. And your claim that our souls are given at our first breath has no support what so ever from this passage or any other. Additionally there are several passages in the Bible about God's relationship with us BEFORE we are born..when we are in the womb... see link below...

Basically WHERE does it state that it is ok to kill a non breathing living fetus?? No where. No where does it state that 1st breath is required before we receive our souls.. NO WHERE. This is something that you added in your interpretation. cont...

[Right2voice]

02:34 AM on 03/06/2011

cont.. If we didn't have a soul before our first breath then how could God "know" us?

""Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:4-5).

You quote passages that state that breath causes life.. and yet you acknowledge that the fetus is alive. You attempt to make the two separate by adding the word "person" and "soul" after 1st breath but again.. there is no support for your assertion in the Bible.. these are words that YOU added.

Further.. look up the word "live". There are several definitions. God caused the man to "live".. but that doesn't mean he wasn't "alive" or a living being before... as you acknowledge.. the fetus is alive... it IS living. "Every man dies, not every man really lives" (Braveheart).

As for "thou shall not murder"... look up "murder" too. Taking away someone's life unjustly is murder.. it fit's the act of abortion.

Bottom line... trying to claim that God is ok with killing something that He created (stated over and over in the Bible) is something that no reasonable or rational thinking person can honestly accept. No matter what the reasons or circumstances.. and ESPECIALLY for the most common reasons and circumstances that are the cause of most abortions.

cont..

[Right2voice]

03:27 AM on 03/06/2011

By your "reasoning" here.. it is "ok" with God to kill a fetus at ANY stage... as long as it hasn't drawn a breath. In spite of the scientific evidence that fetuses feel pain and even exhibit personality traits.

Your "compelling" argument may have encouraged more women to end their pregnancies and at later stages. Does that make you feel good? Are you proud of this "accomplishment"? Your claim that God is "ok" with abortion is a lie that I don't think you even truly believe.

[Anna Nicole Dahmer]

07:38 AM on 03/06/2011

all aborted babies go to heaven, directly into jesus loving arms. it's a win win situation for everyone. especially the baby.

[johmich5]

10:04 AM on 03/05/2011

All humans have rights; living, dead, pre-natal and “potential” humans. These individual human rights are necessarily restrained by others rights and freedoms, in order to secure Life, Liberty and Justice of all.
Without Justice, one mans rights and freedom, becomes another mans constraint and tyranny. The purpose of Civil law, is Equal Justice for all.
Abortion presents an issue of conflicting human rights; the right of the unborn child to live posed against the right of the mother to control her own body and abort that human life within. Pregnant women are parents and guardians of the human life within. That life within is not their body or property and they are not owners of it. Therefore, pregnancy and abortion are not just a woman’s rights issue alone, but also an equal rights issue.
The right to abort another human life was not granted by Roe v Wade, only the right to abort “potentiality for human life” and that right was restrained. Abortion was made legal on the fantasy that the human life begins after being birthed and no sooner. Science now proves human life begins at conception.

[Right2voice]

02:01 PM on 03/05/2011

So very well said.. thanks.

[synergie]

01:19 PM on 03/09/2011

Where does science prove that "human life begins at conception"?

[johmich5]

12:12 AM on 03/10/2011

"The intricate process by which a baby develops from a single cell is miraculous … A zygote is the beginning of a new human being."
The embryology textbook The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed., by Moore et al., 1998
http://www.prolife.com/life_begins.html

In the fields of Prenatal Medicine, Embryology, Fetology, and Human Biology, the fact that human life begins at conception is simply unchallenged and undisputed.
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights
http://www.prolife.com/life_begins.html
http://www.pregnantpause.org/abort/remember-naral.htm
http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

[johmich5]

02:05 AM on 03/10/2011

"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." The "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune, http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm

Wikipedia:
…“Fertilization is the fusing of the gametes, that is a sperm cell and an ovum (egg cell), to form a zygote. At this point, the zygote is genetically unique from either of its parents. Many members of the medical community accept fertilization as the point at which life begins. Dr. Bradley M. Patten from the University of Michigan wrote in Human Embryology that the union of the sperm and the ovum “initiates the life of a new individual” beginning “a new individual life history.”…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_human_life#Biological_markers

"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence." The "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune,
"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization,....to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, ]
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

[Janetshusb]

02:07 AM on 03/05/2011

The 'christians' grandstanding and the use(misuse) of the fetus in a court room stunt is unbelievably disrespectful of an entity they claim to want to protect. Someone should protect the fetus against the the "christians". This is beyond tawdry, manipulative and demeaning............. it's disturbed and disturbing.

[synergie]

02:43 AM on 03/05/2011

Do you really expect these people to behave in any other way? Look at their posts below, the hysteria, hypocrisy and manipulative lies.

Their only use for fetuses is to use, abuse and manipulate them to score political points, waste the taxpayer money and the time of elected officials.

It's a distraction tactic. Because Ohio doesn't have any other pressing issues confronting it's post-born citizens right?

[Janetshusb]

12:20 PM on 03/05/2011

Here in Bangor, Maine, we had a "gentleman" that stood on street corners with signs protesting abortion and swingng a rubber replica of a fetus around in the air ..........talk about disrespectful and inappropriate. The city finally told him to leave the fetus at home. Most of the efforts of the 'christian' anti abortion crowd seem to be self-serving and publicity seeking. It tends to make one question their stated motives.

[jack27]

03:52 PM on 03/04/2011

Someone (I can't remember who) pointed out many years ago that while veterinary medicine can tell us a lot about cows, it can't tell us whether Hindus are right to consider cows sacred. That is a religious question, not a scientific one.

So it is with embryos and fetuses. We know that a heart begins to beat in a developing fetus (or embryo?) at an early stage, and it's easy to learn a great deal more about fetal development. But at what point does a fertilized egg/embryo/fetus become endowed with a sacred human "right to life?" That is a religious question, not a scientific one. If we truly believe in religious freedom, we have no choice but to leave this most intimate personal decision to the woman involved, in consultation with her loved ones (when possible), her doctor, and her conscience.

[Janetshusb]

05:43 PM on 03/04/2011

Thank you for an intelligent and rational discussion of the subject. F&F

[lbcdem95]

07:51 PM on 03/05/2011

If you are "Christian" do you believe in the free will that God bless people with? People have to live there own lives and be accountable to God, not you, for actions they take during their lives.

You should not and cannot control what other people do. I don't care if abortion is made illegal tomorrow, If a woman wants an abortion, she will get an abortion, by any means necessary.

[Janetshusb]

02:41 PM on 03/04/2011

To:Anna Nicole Dahmer, Thanks, I did figure that out but only late in the evening. LOL

[Jennifer Hagan]

01:06 PM on 03/04/2011

What is wrong with these people? God help us all. The crazies have taken over.

[Janetshusb]

05:47 PM on 03/04/2011

The 'crazies' are convinced that they have god on their side. We will need to use intelligence, knowledge, compassion, science, logic and the law.

[synergie]

09:07 PM on 03/04/2011

They're also disturbingly ignorant. Has education really been so horribly wrong in this country for so long?

[onlyaquarterdelusional]

12:13 AM on 03/05/2011

Throughout human history...the crazies have always believed that they had god on thier side. Thier delusion provided the ultimate free pass to commit the worst atrocities ever.

[Marc C]

12:53 PM on 03/04/2011

I wonder how they are going to swear in the fetus to testify?

[riverboatphil]

12:47 PM on 03/04/2011

... please raise your right arm-bud and repeat after me...
...and the next witness will be a gastrula from Texas and, man!, is he pissed.

[tuesdaygirl]

12:29 PM on 03/04/2011

I dont understand the Conservatives. They want less government interference in our private lives, yet they want government to interfer in a woman's reproductive rights.

They want to protect the unborn but they want you to carry a gun everywhere except in government chambers; their rationale is you can protect yourself by killing others. It's perfectly all right to protect the gun lobby, which contributes to the deaths of thousands every year, but Heaven help a woman who cannot afford to raise a child she didn't ask to have.

I see this as the first of many efforts to erode womehn's rights.

[Lizawren]

12:26 PM on 03/04/2011

To think that, not too long ago, it was debated whether women had souls or should have human rights, and now women who benefitted from the blood and tears of those who went before them are turning around and self-righteously denying basic human rights to others. I’d be laughing at the irony of the blindness if it wasn’t so incredibly sad.

[synergie]

09:09 PM on 03/04/2011

Perhaps your religion ever questioned it, and debated it no long ago. Not everyone else was so conflicted.

[astern]

07:39 AM on 03/04/2011

1) I don't think a license to kill could be considered "taking charge of [one's life] and making choices." With that logic one could also say the hired mercenaries in Libya killing the pro-democracy protesters now are taking charge of their lives and making choices, too.
2) Have you ever even been to a third world country? Most children I have worked with, albeit poor, are not miserable. If do some traveling and worked with the poor, you will be surprised at how many of them are happier than us westerners.

[synergie]

10:47 AM on 03/04/2011

False premise, false analogies, and non sequiturs. Your logic is thus illogical.

Indeed those children are happier, they have faiths that are not rigid and tell them to suffer and waste their time and energy trying to foist suffering and misery upon others.

[Right2voice]

12:16 PM on 03/04/2011

Excellent point! Liberals seem to think that they know what constitutes true happiness and it revolves around materialism.

[Lisa Sarinelli]

01:54 PM on 03/04/2011

Wow! And how many liberals do you actually know? Seems to me the materialistic group would be the conservatives i.e. tax cuts for the rich, eliminating estate taxes, cutting funding for any program that would help those less fortunate (education, health care, etc.) - the very things that could help an individual stand on their own feet, thus leveling the playing field!

[Remy Arrr]

09:39 AM on 03/06/2011

Because guaranteeing people choice regarding matters of their own body, sanity, future, and health, something akin to free will; that no man will be turned away from the doctor or ER due to their ability or inability to pay will be able to receive treatment on par with the monied; that people, regardless of money, will go in to check for preventative care, catching things like cancer or STDs before they really start to wreck the house, preventing further spread in the less fortunate communities; that doesn't strike at the right to organize to negotiate conditions concerning their livelihood, their work ..yes, because all these are material on which happiness is grounded.

Or maybe you're referring to ignorant, unthinking bliss. In which case, you're right. Let the rich and the powerful do whatever they want; just as long as you're content, it's all a state of mind.

Either way, these words'll be ignored and you'll just reiterate your point with your sweeping gestures, grandiose acclamations, equally grandiose denouncements, and blanket statements, rounding the corner and bypassing the point.

[Vincent Lepinard]

04:34 AM on 03/04/2011

At 9 weeks old , one cant speak of a "fetus" since it is still an embryo.

[matt gordon]

04:31 AM on 03/04/2011

The fetus invoked its Fifth Amendment right and refused to produce audible sounds while "testifying."

[thereisonlyoneparty]

11:37 PM on 03/03/2011

Dumb.

Signs of life are not signs of viability or ability to actually live.  More it is rather irrelevant.  This is about privacy rights.  Nothing else.

"When a heartbeat of a baby is detected, that baby will be protected from abortion," Wachtmann told the Hudson Hub Times last month. "It's really as simple as that. ... As technology improves in medicine, as it continually does, that protection will move closer and closer to conception, which is I think for many of us what our ultimate goal of protecting life is."

 What a dumb cow.  If she is not in favor of abortion then she should not have abortions.  It is a moral decision and a moral decision only.

By the bye, I love how this site frames this as being "anti-abortion" people against "pro-choice" people.  It brings up abortion in the bad people (those seeking to prohibit abortion) and not in the good people (good and bad should be unquoted, but I am not going back).  That is really how it works though.  People attempt to remove themselves from abortion on their own side  as "pro-life" or "pro-choice".  Because it is about that, right?  Americans are dopes.    It is not about life or choice.  And even if it was everyone is in favor of life and choice.  It is about abortion, even if you side does not want to be associated with the word.

[Right2voice]

01:26 AM on 03/04/2011

It's about killing or terminating a human life in it's early stages. I don't know what country you're from but in this country protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are what we stand for. And that's what is at issue. It's a human life and it is entitled to protection.... ESPECIALLY since it cannot defend itself.

[nongrata]

03:07 AM on 03/04/2011

A fetus in the first trimester is no more a human than a wart. Its a collection of cells that COULD become a human. Get off yoru high horse you religious bigot.

[synergie]

10:48 AM on 03/04/2011

Cows have more sense than to make such stupid arguments.

[TheRoosterman]

11:35 PM on 03/03/2011

I'm sorry where is the JOBS bill???

[andee v]

10:37 AM on 03/04/2011

They were aborted..