Thune: The Right to Life Will Not Be Ignored

Thune: The Right to Life Will Not Be Ignored

“I am saddened and disheartened that a major political party in this country has made depriving unborn human beings of their rights a defining cause, but the right to life will not be ignored.

Click here or on the picture above to watch the video.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who has a 100 percent pro-life voting record in Congress, today discussed Speaker Pelosi’s and the White House’s refusal to answer if they believed that a 15-week-old unborn baby is a human being. Thune also discussed the president’s budget and the pro-abortion measures that would direct taxpayer dollars to fund abortion providers in the United States and overseas.

33 thoughts on “Thune: The Right to Life Will Not Be Ignored”

  1. And, if an unborn baby isn’t a human being, I’d like them to tell me what it is.

    Thank you Senator Thune for your defense of the most vulnerable among us.

    1. It’s a human being but that doesn’t mean anything. It isn’t a human being that matters.

    2. I think the question is one of timing, Troy. Is it an “unborn baby” at the moment of conception?

        1. Tough question, Troy. I have a hard time saying that a day old (or even month old) fetus is a “human being,” just like an acorn isn’t an oak tree, and a fertilized egg isn’t a chicken. That said, at some point between then and birth, the fetus absolutely is a human being. I just don’t know when that threshold is crossed.

  2. Without election integrity, we’ll lose ground in this fight.

    This is a crazy thought – what if it was necessary to simulate the first woman president as a trade deal to roll back abortion?

    The deep state doesn’t trust human agency.

    It can’t have election integrity.

    Which makes this an interesting proposition, that a meta-democracy thinks it more capable than the real mccoy.

    1. John if you are concerned about election integrity, that’s something to address with the secretary of state. They are in charge of elections conducted in the state. We do not want to federalize elections.

  3. Life does not begin at conception, if you want to reduce abortions invest in contraception and education. However, for some reason, we can’t have that either, I’m not sure what the goals are here, forcing every American to conform to the beliefs of the church?

    1. That is your opinion and I totally disagree. How about people take responsibility for their actions instead of having to have the government through taxpayer money teach people to be responsible. I know that’s not in line with the socialist mentality of the demo party, but it is reasonable and fair.

    2. So, when does life begin? If it isn’t a human being, what is it prior to being “alive.”

      And, what is the science you reference to support your view?

      1. Opinions are based on logic rather than fiction or magic. This same practice is what is used in most courts, and is the fairest option when governing a society.

        Life begins at viability, prior to viability it is a zygote, embryo, and fetus (I accept viability somewhere around 20 weeks of the fetal stage). My sources are very introductory level biology which cites the biological signs to life. Furthermore, this logic was clearly stated in PP v. Casey, and Roe v. Wade.

        I don’t like abortion, but that doesn’t change my opinion on the matter regarding government intervention in the subject. I would like to see a reduction in abortions, there were roughly 160 in South Dakota last year, most were in the germinal and embryonic stages. I think that number can be reduced, or even eliminated, if unwanted pregnancies are reduced. This is a no cost change in educational and healthcare policies within the state. Tax payer money currently teaches very little reproductive education, and tries to limit access to contraception. If you don’t like abortion, embrace policies and practices that can reduce it. It is unfortunate people want to enact their religious interpretations (opinions) into law, that aren’t practical. A prophylactic does not cause an abortion, abstinence only education is not practical or realistic.

        1. Just because it is called something besides a baby, toddler, child, teen or adult based on stage development does not make it any less human.

          So, what is your science that says before viability it is not life (is it dead or in inorganic or what?)?

          By the way, the determination during Roe V. Wade was based on the knowledge of the science of the time. Things change like Galileo taught us.

          1. It’s not a question of science, Troy. Science doesn’t get to define what a “human being” or “person” is. It’s a question of philosophy.

          2. If you read the case law you would know there is a lot more to determine “life” other than the terminology. One can believe whatever they want about the zygote, but government should use a logical standard to determine life. You mention that science changes with time, indeed it does, however, viability has not unfortunately changed much since Roe. As you can expect, there is very little support to actually experiment and research on human viability outside the womb, so we are stuck with what we have. We agree science changes with technological advancements, but what drives religious interpretations or beliefs or philosophy change? This is the premise on why we shouldn’t use arbitrary beliefs when establishing law for our land if we want to keep our empire from collapsing like other great powers. If people truly wanted less abortions, they would embrace practices to have less unwanted pregnancies, but they don’t. They primarily don’t embrace those practices because their religions tell them those thing are a bad too, then they want their religious beliefs instituted as law. I can’t agree with that. Lets have a pragmatic approach to end unwanted pregnancies, abortions could be single digit numbers in SD.

            1. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but your tone seems to suggest you’ve rejected the very strong historical evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

  4. Anonymous, 10:34,

    First, I want to thank you for your honesty in saying you think “life” is a philosophical question vs. a scientific question. It is breathtaking (literally, figuratively, and metaphorically).

    By making “life” a philosophical question it is not “objective” but subjective. So, whose subjective “philosophy” should be determinative in your opinion? Nine people in robes, the President, 435 members of Congress? Does the definition of life change if these people change?

    Further the use of viability is subjective. Is it when one can live on their own via their own resources (reason and physical abilities)? When they can eat food on their own? When they can breath on their own? When they can live without medical support?

    While we are here using “standards” which are not age/time related, does a person who can’t live without medical support become “non-life”?

    You say we should “use logical standards to determine life” and not “arbitrary beliefs but your entire post is your “arbitrary” beliefs and standards. I disagree.

    So back to my question: If an unborn baby isn’t a human being that is a live, what is it and what is your objective criteria using science or is a human being a subjective condition?`

    1. You are conflating posts from different anonymous commenters. Understandable, but we are playing by Pat’s rules here. Take it up with him if you don’t like anonymity.

      I am the one who said it’s philosophical. I chose my words carefully (“person” and “human being”) but you changed them to “life,” which isn’t the same thing legally. Constitutional and legal protections apply to persons, not to life.

      I would agree that a day old fetus has “life.” That doesn’t necessarily mean it is a person, or a human being, distinct from the mother.

      I am also the one who said that an acorn is not an oak tree, and a fertilized egg not a chicken. It seems like you’d have to believe these things too, if you believe a day old fetus is a person.

      That’s just a bridge too far for me. Philosophically. But I do agree that personhood and humanity begins before birth. I just don’t know where that threshold is. I don’t like “viability” any more than you do as a criteria, but I don’t know what else is better.

      Like I said at the start, tough questions.

      1. The difference between an acorn and a oak tree is stage of development. They are both oak.

        If a day old fetus isn’t a human being, what is it? Why is that question so hard to answer?

        BTW, if you don’t want to own every anonymous post, use a moniker. But, trust me, I’m not going to take the time to sort out who is who.

        1. “The difference between an acorn and a oak tree is stage of development. They are both oak.“

          Yes but is it a tree?

          A fetus may be human but does that mean it’s a person?

          This is what I mean by philosophical, but maybe a better choice of words was definitional. Science doesn’t define words.

          “If a day old fetus isn’t a human being, what is it? Why is that question so hard to answer?”

          I don’t know, but my devil’s advocate response is that it’s indistinguishable from the mother, thus it’s not a distinct person or human being.

          This question is hard to answer because, try as you might to make it simple, it’s not. Just the opposite.

          If it’s easy for you to answer I contend that’s a product of your faith, not of reason. Which is fine, but you should acknowledge that.

          “BTW, if you don’t want to own every anonymous post, use a moniker. But, trust me, I’m not going to take the time to sort out who is who.”

          I don’t blame you. But Pat is known to out people and try to harm them personally. He has no journalistic ethics and cannot be trusted. I’ll never sign my name here.

          Say what you will about Cory H. but he’d never do THAT.

            Scientific or philosophical or definitional it is still subjective and at that point is a matter of political input and not fiat by the nine people in robes.
            Regarding your attempt to diminish my position by asserting it is a matter of faith, cram it. First, people of faith have a a legitimate place in the public square and your comment is definitional bigotry. Second, I’ve never once invoked religion but a consistent logic of viability is irrelevant (otherwise, do people in coma’s on life support become non-persons?) and determinative is a unique genetic code which is wholly human. Third, personhood is too fundamental to all rights it must be defined with the least possible subjective criteria (unique genetic code is least subjective. Finally, your position it is hard to answer makes personhood subjective based on who makes the decisions and such arbitrariness creates the argument some life is disposable regardless of stage of development which I reject wholly

        2. Troy, for purposes of disclosure I’ll tell you that we are mostly allies here. I think Roe v Wade is bad law and this issue should be decided by the states.

    2. Life is not a philosophical question in law, even as John Thune noted in the video, this is biology 101 (he ignored this list), the biological signs of life:
      responsiveness to the environment;
      growth and change;
      ability to reproduce;
      have a metabolism and breathe;
      maintain homeostasis;
      being made of cells; and.
      passing traits onto offspring.

      A zygote is not life according to that definition at this time. When you want to legislate a religious belief, where does that stop? There are plenty of theocracies in the world, maybe you should find one, but USA is not and should not be one.

  5. Are you kidding me?

    At the instant of conception it becomes a separate human being, a person. With all the rights and privileges of any other human being. Every life is precious and should be celebrated, as it is truly a gift. It is incumbent upon the mother AND the father to care for, provide for, instruct and protect this life, until their dying breath.

    The only reason for an abortion is for medical necessity, and then that decision should be made by the mother AND the father, in consultation with their spiritual advisor, close family or friends and medical professionals. It should not be made by lawyers, judges, legislators, governors, dog catchers, congress, Sam I am, presidents, or even the Pope. Even then, I don’t know a parent who wouldn’t gladly give up their own life so their child might live.

    1. MC thinks a fetus should be able to vote.

      You are out of your depth here, pal. Let the adults talk please.

      1. Am I? At the instant of conception the being has unique DNA sequence. In that aspect I consider the being to be a unique individual. As a Human Being it has the right to life.

    2. Why is every life precious and why should it be celebrated? You say that, but I can think of tens of millions of adults in this country whose deaths wouldn’t bother me in the slightest or I would outright celebrate. Why should I be bothered in the slightest if some woman who I don’t know and didn’t get pregnant kills her kid before it’s born, when its life at best won’t mean a thing to me once it’s out?

      1. Steve, medical science can do some amazing things, stuff 5 to 10 year ago was just science fiction. Once tissue is dead, it is dead.
        all the doctors and science can’t bring it back to life. even a heart transplant. The transplanted heart while it still functions, is dead tissue, it won’t grow, or change as the body around it grows and changes, after a time that heart will need to be replaced.

        Once life is gone. it is gone, forever, it can not be recovered or replaced.

        If the loss of life of an adult, child or unborn doesn’t bother you. That is your choice.

        I’m not sure was bothers me more, the loss of life, or that our society has come to a point that some people believe that life is disposable.

      2. Steve you sound like some Germans who didn’t seem concerned about just some Jews until they expanded who they thought inferior.

Comments are closed.