Del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Reddit
Newsvine
co.mments
Sanctity of Human Life Act
To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.
Other Bill Titles (2 more) 11/13/2007--Introduced.
Sanctity of Human Life Act - Declares that:
(1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is the person's paramount and most fundamental right;
(2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloni... moreSee Full Bill Text
Committees
Amendments
This bill has no amendments.
Bill Status
| Introduced |  | Voted on by House | | Voted on by Senate | | Considered By President | | Bill Becomes Law |
| November 13, 2007 |
Users tracking H.R.4157 (6) are also tracking:
| People | Bills |
|---|---|
In the News
December 03, 2007 The Sanctity of Human Life Act - HR-4157
by John W. Wallace I support "The Sanctity of Human Life Act (HR-4157) introducted in the 110th congress by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), which defines life as ...
Blog Coverage
September 04, 2008 Title IV loans on the horizon?
I am very pleased to report that President Bush has recently signed into law HR 4157 - The Higher Education Opportunity Act. This bill incorporates a key amendment to currently existing legislation which heretofore had restricted Title ...
Source: ValueMD Medical Schools Forum
September 04, 2008 Republican Dedication to American Values
The Sanctity of Human Life Act, HR 4157, states that âthe life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological ...
Source: Life, Liberty and Family
August 28, 2008 Federal loans become a possiblity for Saba
President Bush has recently signed into law HR 4157 - The Higher Education Opportunity Act. This bill incorporates a key amendment to currently existing legislation which heretofore had restricted Title IV financing to only four ...
Source: ValueMD Medical Schools Forum
21 more posts...
See most useful blog posts
Information made available by:
Rating Filter: 5
(Close help)
Comments
(Close help)
Filtered Comment [show]
Sweet, so after they pass this one, when can we start trying to make methods of birth control illegal again? I mean seriously, God says no sex for any other purpose than procreation of the species by two people (of any breeding age) in wedlock.
But really though, every person who wants to pass any law (such as this one) which seeks to nullify the effect of RvW should have to adopt at least 1 American orphan. If you have done so, please feel free to harrass me all you like with your position and I will gladly listen to you gripe about the existing laws which seeks to allow for a chance of improved quality of human life before quantity of human life. (please note that these opinions are coming from a person without the physical capacity to carry a child)
The problem with the bill is that it would make every woman that currently is having sex, or trying to conceive a child into a murderer. This is due to the effect known as the "Pro Life Conundrum". The focus of the conundrum is the fact that a woman has a choice to have sex. If she chooses to have sex then the outcome of that sexual activity is 7 out of 10 time abortion. So a choice to have sex is a choice to violate the law as outlined above.
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-2TjBrmQlabMmkPXFrSmHjB_fBgzsyDOJmsQ-?cq=1
Those such as myself believe that life does not begin at conception and therefore we know that it is foolish to make such laws. But once the law is written, and life is considered to begin at conception, then women will become murderers. And the argument can be made that today, any woman that believes that life begins at conception is either a murderer or a person that has little respect for life. That is why the natural outcome for such foolish legislation leads to this conundrum.
So how is it logical to say that a woman MUST have an abortion as a result of sexual activity? It is ALSO possible to live with the consequences and have the baby - keeping the child or giving it up for adoption. Abortion is an excuse for women to have as much free sex as they want and not have to deal with the scientific effects (or "side effects", to the Pro-Choice mindset). A woman can have "a choice to have sex", but, with this law in place, she would not have the option of simply getting rid of the baby and killing the consequences of her sex. Once again, Birth Control, Adoption and simply keeping her baby are all good options for the woman - options that do not veer away from the responsibility she has with her own body as a sexually active female.
If this law passes then what is the next step? What is the next government sponsored violation of the rights of a woman who happens to become pregnant? Grocery checks to ensure we are feeding the 'person' properly and not violating its rights? Government sponsored activity to be sure we are getting the right amount of exercise or not doing the wrong exercises? Forced prenatal care provided at the expense of the taxpayers?
This is a slippery slope leading to places the government has no business in.
The bill is introduced more to protect the life of the embyro within the mother. If a mother is pregant and the doctor say she has to have an operation or she will die, then she can make two choices morally: have the operation, or not have the operation for the sake of the life of the embryo. The latter is the heroic choice. If during the operation the embryo does not survive, then there is no wrong done. However, if the intent is to kill the embyro then that is morally wrong. Killing one human to save another is morally wrong, saving one and respecting the life of the other even if it doesn't survive is not morally wrong. The distinction is in the intent. And even if many people say "life is not at conception" it would seem to me that if we're not sure wouldn't we want to be wrong - for the sake of the life of the embryo?
Add A Comment