Va OK's bill to likely close most abortion clinics

[Drewsifer]

It just shocks me how people scream about the Government telling them how to live life, and then applaud things like this.

What's next, taking an ailing family member off of life support is illegal? As long as they have a heartbeat, that's a human life! You just committed murder for letting Aunt Sally go, even if she was unresponsive.

And it of course strikes me as funny that from what I can tell, everyone in this thread is a man (including myself of course). So aside from an emotional stake, we really have no real interest in this matter.

What about if the birth of the child could endanger the Mothers life? What if they child has Harlequins? There are diseases that kill babies hours after birth that are horrible and painful. Who are you to tell a family they can't let their child avoid that pain for their kids? And get off your high horses. Remember you can't judge a person until you've walked a mile in their shoes.

Having an abortion is a personal choice, one that people not involved, and the Government, need to stay the hell out of.

[VBshooter]

Drewsifer wrote:

And it of course strikes me as funny that from what I can tell, everyone in this thread is a man (including myself of course). So aside from an emotional stake, we really have no real interest in this matter

Thank You!!!

[Yarddawg]

Let's look at life logically. Most, if not all, living organisms start to grow as soon as they are fertilized. It doesn't matter if we are talking about a plant, animal, or human. Once that organism is alive, it starts to grow. No dead organism grows. It may become bloated, but it does not grow.

Now apply that concept to a human embryo. The egg/seed becomes fertilized and begins to grow. Therefore, since it is growing, it must contain life! It does not matter if one can detect a heartbeat or not.

Simple, isn't it?

[Yarddawg]

It just shocks me how people scream about the Government telling them how to live life, and then applaud things like this.

What's next, taking an ailing family member off of life support is illegal? As long as they have a heartbeat, that's a human life! You just committed murder for letting Aunt Sally go, even if she was unresponsive.

Not exactly comparing apples to apples. Hopefully, at some point, Aunt Sally made her wishes known to family members. The unborn child has not had an opportunity to do so.

And it of course strikes me as funny that from what I can tell, everyone in this thread is a man (including myself of course). So aside from an emotional stake, we really have no real interest in this matter.

Somebody needs to speak for the unborn child. If it won't be the mother, it might as well be me.

What about if the birth of the child could endanger the Mothers life? What if they child has Harlequins? There are diseases that kill babies hours after birth that are horrible and painful. Who are you to tell a family they can't let their child avoid that pain for their kids? And get off your high horses. Remember you can't judge a person until you've walked a mile in their shoes.

Rape, incest, the mother's life being in danger, as well as incurable lethal diseases are justifiable reasons to terminate an unborn life IMHO. As far as judging another, following your logic, we may as well eliminate all courts. After all, the judges and juries pass judgment on others without walking a mile in their shoes multiple times everyday.

Having an abortion is a personal choice, one that people not involved, and the Government, need to stay the hell out of.

See, there is the problem. It affects more than just one person!

[smltooner]

IMHO, abortion is not an acceptable means of birth control. Nor is pregnancy a sexually transmitted disease that needs to be cured by abortion.


The referenced article states

it would put an undue burden on poor women and those in rural areas, where clinics likely would close.

I say GOOD! Maybe these people will think prior to indulging in a moment of pleasure that potentially will have lasting effects on not only their lives, but on the unborn lives as well!

I will address the welfare aspect as well before someone else does. Unless a person is physically unable to work in any capacity, I am opposed to welfare. If the parent is unable to adequately care for the child, the child should be put up for adoption.

+1

[jim100]

Let's look at life logically. Most, if not all, living organisms start to grow as soon as they are fertilized. It doesn't matter if we are talking about a plant, animal, or human. Once that organism is alive, it starts to grow. No dead organism grows. It may become bloated, but it does not grow.

Now apply that concept to a human embryo. The egg/seed becomes fertilized and begins to grow. Therefore, since it is growing, it must contain life! It does not matter if one can detect a heartbeat or not.

Simple, isn't it?

+1
I assume that most of us are followers of Christ yes? (if not than stop reading) if so read this articlehttp://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/a ... rtion.html

[Kreutz]

Its a child not a choice.

@Kreutz - ever wondered if your parents had decided to abort you?

I don't think I would know about it...having never been born. So I wouldn't have minded obviously.

IMHO abortion should be legal only in those cases where rape or incest are involved.

Actually agree, except I'd throw in serious birth defects. Some kids are born with horrific congenital problems....don't think I'd want that inflicted on me or my kids.

This may come as a surprise, but I am actually morally opposed to abortions of "convenience"(any reason but threat of life, rape, incest, or serious birth defects).

I actually ended a very good friendship with a couple that had one as I just couldn't be friends with them anymore. It hurt like hell, but I had to do it and let it be known why.

However, I still think the government should butt out of it, and am amused at the self-described libertarians here praising this effective ban.

Its an intensely personal decision and should be left at that.

[CowboyT]

+1
I assume that most of us are followers of Christ yes? (if not than stop reading) if so read this articlehttp://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/a ... rtion.html

And that's a huge reason why I cannot and will not vote Republican--too willing to legislate their own specific religion on the rest of us. Well, I don't follow your religion, and personally I think it's for the birds, certainly not deserving of theocrat moves like this.

I agree with Kreutz on this one. The Christian conservatives routinely sing the praises of personal liberty...UNTIL they think it goes against their specific religion. Then it's, "OH, NO, STOP THEM! SHOOT THEM! BOMB THEM! MURDER THE DOCTORS WHO DO IT!" Not saying other religious "clubs" are any more "virtuous", because they're not. But before the Christian conservative club goes bashing "non-believer" beliefs, they need to get their own house in order...and they haven't.

If that means some of you don't want to be friends with me anymore, then so be it.

[Kreutz]

+1
I assume that most of us are followers of Christ yes? (if not than stop reading) if so read this articlehttp://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/a ... rtion.html

And that's a huge reason why I cannot and will not vote Republican--too willing to legislate their own specific religion on the rest of us. Well, I don't follow your religion, and personally I think it's for the birds, certainly not deserving of theocrat moves like this.

I agree with Kreutz on this one. The Christian conservatives routinely sing the praises of personal liberty...UNTIL they think it goes against their specific religion. Then it's, "OH, NO, STOP THEM! SHOOT THEM! BOMB THEM! MURDER THE DOCTORS WHO DO IT!" Not saying other religious "clubs" are any more "virtuous", because they're not. But before the Christian conservative club goes bashing "non-believer" beliefs, they need to get their own house in order...and they haven't.

If that means some of you don't want to be friends with me anymore, then so be it.

I am actually (gasp) in the process of converting to Christianity, and if I ever wind up like that I have explicit instructions for my wife to kick me in the nuts.

Am still pro-choice(in the capacity already described) and pro-gay marriage, and fail to see why the State should be influenced by theological beliefs. If religious iinstutions (as private entities) wish to exclude women who have had abortions or refuse to perform gay marriage, so be it.

It galls me however gay couples are not entitled to their just due for legal marriage under our supposedly "equal protection under the law" secular justice system for justice of the peace marriages or the government gets to say who can have an abortion where.

[Sotiris]

You can't legislate your morality on others. That is the lesson to be learned from the 18th Amendment.

Abortion and Marriage should absolutely not be political discussions. We all have free will. By our own choices we are either uplifted or damned. And it should be of no concern to anyone else.

[zephyp]

I think some are far too quick to equate pro-life with Christians. Yes, most Christians are pro-life but are most pro-lifers Christians.

We are talking about a gruesome procedure that takes the life of an unborn child. Many women do it merely as a means of birth control or because their birth control failed...any society that openly condones and allows that IMHO is an epic failure.

And, as a Christian I am not pro-life because God told me or its in the Bible...not the case...I'm pro-life simply because its the right and moral way to be.

[gunderwood]

You can't legislate your morality on others. That is the lesson to be learned from the 18th Amendment.

Yes, we can not and should not legislate morality. However, that isn't the central question here.

We can and do legislate ethics. I'm against the proactive "you haven't harmed anyone yet" silliness we all too often engage in, but the government has a legitimate purpose and interest in legislating ethical violations between people. If the government had no legitimate purpose in legislating ethical violations, we would have no use for it at all. Even things like war are merely an ethical violation against a nation of people, which is why the federal government has the power to provide for the common defense. That is and likely always will be the central question concerning abortion, but one which pro-choicers always ignore and assume away so they can get what they want or at least feel better about the "choice."

Right now we have a double standard in our laws. A mother can choose to terminate a pregnancy, but if someone were to murder her and her unborn child, they would be charged for two murders, not one. How is it that one person choosing to end a life of a child is ok, in another instance it isn't? Sure, murdering the mother is still wrong, but if it is just her body, then there should only be one charge not two. How about if someone hits a pregnant women and she miscarries? Again, they would be charged with murder/manslaughter of the child. If the standards were consistent, they should be charged with nothing more than assault and battery. It really would be no different than if you hit me and broke my nose. You harmed my body, and it may never heal just right, but are you guilty of murdering me? Hardly. It either is just her body or it is a life, the double standard is a disgrace to a free society. The government regulates these sorts of ethical violations all the time, as it should. It is an entirely different discussion about what constitutes legitimate force and due process for enforcing such ethical violations (and of course what does not).

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, pro-choicers never want to discuss the ethics of abortion and how the government does have a vested interest in regulating the ethical violation of one of societies members...or at least the possibility of there being two people, not one. They always want to cry foul about morality this and that, restrictions of liberty, edge cases, etc. Why not debate the central question? Because on ethical terms alone, abortion is practically undefensible without the explicit ability to know exactly when life begins.

Yes, there are people who view abortion as morally wrong too (as do I), but that isn't the reason why government has a vested interest in regulating it. The government has a vested interest because it is a possible ethical violation against one of it members, the child. Just as they would if you unjustly killed me.

[gunderwood]

We are talking about a gruesome procedure that takes the life of an unborn child. Many women do it merely as a means of birth control or because their birth control failed...any society that openly condones and allows that IMHO is an epic failure.

Exactly. If you break down the pro-choice arguments, they almost always become nothing more than a way to avoid consequences for their actions. Of course, if you actually try to discuss the ethical ramifications of such a policy, they ignore that and throw out hypothetical edge cases designed to capture the emotion of the argument rather than the logical. You're the boogie man!

[jsharlan]

I dunno why it is usually related so much to religion. I am not a Christian and yet I am against abortion. I am of the opinion that all human beings(excluding murderers and child abusers as I feel they give up any rights they once had) should have a choice to live. If you take that choice away from them, that is wrong in my eyes. The unborn child does not have the ability to beg you not to kill him, therefore I must be his voice. Regardless of religion, race, or creed, if life is started, it should have a basic right to live.

Personally I'd be more supportive of stopping some of these people from reproducing in the first place than killing the innocent life created as a result. It shouldn't be punished because it was created by unfit parents. Thats probably one of the few liberal lines of thinking I have, but I'm starting to question if everyone should really have a right to reproduce as many times as they please when they won't be taking the responsibility of raising this life, society will.

[gunderwood]

Thats probably one of the few liberal lines of thinking I have, but I'm starting to question if everyone should really have a right to reproduce as many times as they please when they won't be taking the responsibility of raising this life, society will.

IMHO, there is an better and easier solution which doesn't require that we become China. Our welfare programs are directly responsible for subsidizing that behavior, just get rid of them. Private charities can pick up those who are in real need.

We keep building a society based around not having consequences for our actions and then wonder why things keep going horribly wrong...FYI, the first guarantees the second!

[Sotiris]

Right now we have a double standard in our laws. A mother can choose to terminate a pregnancy, but if someone were to murder her and her unborn child, they would be charged for two murders, not one. How is it that one person choosing to end a life of a child is ok, in another instance it isn't? Sure, murdering the mother is still wrong, but if it is just her body, then there should only be one charge not two. How about if someone hits a pregnant women and she miscarries? Again, they would be charged with murder/manslaughter of the child. If the standards were consistent, they should be charged with nothing more than assault and battery. It really would be no different than if you hit me and broke my nose. You harmed my body, and it may never heal just right, but are you guilty of murdering me? Hardly. It either is just her body or it is a life, the double standard is a disgrace to a free society. The government regulates these sorts of ethical violations all the time, as it should. It is an entirely different discussion about what constitutes legitimate force and due process for enforcing such ethical violations (and of course what does not).

And that is exactly why this is not a political issue. Every thing a politician touches, they find ways to mess up. That double standard should not exist. It does because pro-life people wrote those laws to give their DA more ability to charge pro-choice people. Sure, officially they wrote it to let them charge murderers with an extra count of murder, because more laws always stops criminals, right? (Just like gun control laws work so well, right?)

Even though I'm personally pro-life, it is not my call to make. Judge not. Hate the sin, but love the sinner.

Laws can not coerce the few in to following the majority. If they could, then there wouldn't be criminals.

Ethically, you are correct. It is a disgusting thing to do(aside from the usual rape/incest/grotesque deformity). However, legislating ethics is right on that line with legislating morality. That should not be for us to judge.

[jim100]

+1
I assume that most of us are followers of Christ yes? (if not than stop reading) if so read this articlehttp://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/a ... rtion.html

And that's a huge reason why I cannot and will not vote Republican--too willing to legislate their own specific religion on the rest of us. Well, I don't follow your religion, and personally I think it's for the birds, certainly not deserving of theocrat moves like this.

I agree with Kreutz on this one. The Christian conservatives routinely sing the praises of personal liberty...UNTIL they think it goes against their specific religion. Then it's, "OH, NO, STOP THEM! SHOOT THEM! BOMB THEM! MURDER THE DOCTORS WHO DO IT!" Not saying other religious "clubs" are any more "virtuous", because they're not. But before the Christian conservative club goes bashing "non-believer" beliefs, they need to get their own house in order...and they haven't.

If that means some of you don't want to be friends with me anymore, then so be it.

My statement had nothing to do with republican,democrats,communists or any other political element in the world today what I am saying is this, that if you are a christian than guess what you stance you should have? Against abortion, if you are Pro-choice or sitting on the fence than you need to read the 10 commandments. Now the ones that pertain here the are the sixth and the sevenths ones, let us read shall we? Sixth commandment "thou shalt not murder" well that means don't kill any innocent being. (obvious)
now for the seventh "thou shalt not commit adultery" now that means don't sleep with any one other than your spouse(does not include homosexuals, transgenders,transdressers) which would take care of the desire to have an abortion in the first place.

Now everybody you have your answer why the Pro lifers are inexplicable inter woven with Christians.

[zephyp]

I think regardless of alignment, spiritually or politically, anyone that is pro-choice should familiarize themselves with abortion procedures especially partial birth...that one is performed when they dont want to "hurt" the mommy.

[jsharlan]

I think regardless of alignment, spiritually or politically, anyone that is pro-choice should familiarize themselves with abortion procedures especially partial birth...that one is performed when they dont want to "hurt" the mommy.

Personally I wouldn't care if they could just wave a magic wand over a woman and everything just disappeared, I still think it would be wrong. It isn't just an inconvenient cancer.

[Kreutz]

I think regardless of alignment, spiritually or politically, anyone that is pro-choice should familiarize themselves with abortion procedures especially partial birth...that one is performed when they dont want to "hurt" the mommy.

I am familiar with the procedure. I even read the pathology statements that give you the limb measurements and I am still pro-choice.

What about abortion drugs that induce a miscarriage in early pregnancy?

Also have 3 kids, so I know what ultrasounds look like and babies are like to hold. Personally I could not have given the Ok for any of my kids to get the D+C streatment.

However, if one wishes to pursue it, so be it.