PDA

View Full Version : Arizona Passes 3 Anti Abortion Bills; Defines Life as Before Conception




Gravik
04-13-2012, 03:13 PM
Well, I think this is taking it too far....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/10/az-abortion-bills-arizona-gestational-age_n_1415715.html


Arizona lawmakers gave final passage to three anti-abortion bills Tuesday afternoon, including one that declares pregnancies in the state begin two weeks before conception.

Acala
04-13-2012, 03:44 PM
Just THINKING about sex in Arizona results in being liable for child support.

Philosophy_of_Politics
04-13-2012, 03:56 PM
Still the only policy where I must abandon my Libertarian views. I simply cannot support abortion.

Nirvikalpa
04-13-2012, 04:01 PM
... calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman, which would move the beginning of a pregnancy up two weeks prior to conception.

What the hell.

dannno
04-13-2012, 04:06 PM
See!! I knew it!

Don't go to Arizona and pull a fire alarm at 11pm in a hotel known to have people honey mooning!! (although who in their right mind would honey moon in Arizona?!)

But anyway, you could be charged with murdering a potential life!

dannno
04-13-2012, 04:08 PM
Still the only policy where I must abandon my Libertarian views. I simply cannot support abortion.

You can be a libertarian and be pro-life or pro-choice.

It depends on when you want to begin affording rights to a life, or, when you believe the fetus becomes an actual person. If you don't think that a 1 month old fetus is a person, then you can support early term abortions.

It's all really a matter of opinion.

Philosophy_of_Politics
04-13-2012, 04:17 PM
You can be a libertarian and be pro-life or pro-choice.

It depends on when you want to begin affording rights to a life, or, when you believe the fetus becomes an actual person. If you don't think that a 1 month old fetus is a person, then you can support early term abortions.

It's all really a matter of opinion.

Well, I simply cannot accept the notion that another individual has the authority to determine what is and/or isn't human.

nayjevin
04-13-2012, 04:18 PM
At the point of legal significance, it is now known that the egg was to become viable life. The most extreme of the potentially sensible abortion arguments.

nayjevin
04-13-2012, 04:24 PM
You can be a libertarian and be pro-life or pro-choice.

*consistent libertarian


It depends on when you want to begin affording rights to a life, or, when you believe the fetus becomes an actual person.

What you mean is exactly right, I believe, but it should be clarified that what someone believes about defining personhood is a separate issue from what role government should play.


If you don't think that a 1 month old fetus is a person, then you can support early term abortions.

* ... and be consistent with the modern interpretation of the word 'libertarian'.

The abortion argument as I see it:

How to define the word person?
How/whether to protect the rights of a person through pre-emptive government action?
How/whether to achieve restitution when the protectable rights of a person are infringed?

Sola_Fide
04-13-2012, 04:28 PM
Still the only policy where I must abandon my Libertarian views. I simply cannot support abortion.

The correct, consistent libertarian view is pro-life:

Being Pro-Life Is Necessary To Defend Liberty by Ron Paul:
http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html

FrankRep
04-13-2012, 04:32 PM
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/13/jan-brewer-signs-abortion-ban-defining-pregnancy-before-conception/


Specifically, the bill would “[p]rohibit abortions at or after twenty weeks of gestation, except in cases of a medical emergency, based on the documented risks to women’s health and the strong medical evidence that unborn children feel pain during an abortion at that gestational age,” where gestational age is defined as “age of the unborn child as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman.”

Guttmacher Institute’s State Issues Manager Elizabeth Nash recently told Raw Story that obstetricians start the clock on pregnancies after the “last menstrual period” to “be on the safe side.”

“Certainly, they are trying move the gestational cutoff from what had been over the last two years a 20-week gestational cutoff to an 18-week gestational cutoff,” Nash explained. “At the same time, they are trying to say, ‘Oh, this is a 20-week abortion ban.’ And they get away with that with the definition of gestational age that’s in the bill.”

Even experts who do not disagree with dating pregnancies from the last menstrual period, think that 18 weeks (or 20 weeks gestational age) is far too restrictive.
...

Philosophy_of_Politics
04-13-2012, 04:34 PM
The correct, consistent libertarian view is pro-life:

Being Pro-Life Is Necessary To Defend Liberty by Ron Paul:
http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html

I've read that, and I agree. But at the same time. I've heard such convincing objective arguments from the opposition. The issue for me, is that I simply struggle with an Authoritarian approach to abortion laws.

Agorism
04-13-2012, 04:55 PM
The term conception has always been a blurry one. It actually meant implantation, but its use in popular speech tends to mean earlier than that leading to the term to end up meaning nothing in particular. When Paul says it though, I've always interpreted it as him meaning literally conception rather than Newspeak term you generally here.

Politicians but not the average voter have long known that this term is ambiguous so they use it so hedge on the issue.

The Free Hornet
04-13-2012, 04:57 PM
I've read that, and I agree. But at the same time. I've heard such convincing objective arguments from the opposition. The issue for me, is that I simply struggle with an Authoritarian approach to abortion laws.

Do you want a government big enough to protect a microscopic fetus?

James Madison
04-13-2012, 05:00 PM
I'm confused. A unique lifeform is created at conception. Prior to that, it is simply another cell in a larger organism. You own your own cells and can do whatever you wish with them.

Philosophy_of_Politics
04-13-2012, 05:22 PM
Do you want a government big enough to protect a microscopic fetus?

I'm someone who was involved in a relationship, where an abortion was done against my will. As someone who gets to live with that reality, and who isn't religiously motivated in my reasoning behind being pro-life. I just cannot express deeply enough, that people avoid it entirely. I just cannot support it, because I understand how life and liberty are linked, and precious.

It's truly the most controversial topic, in humanities existence today. We cannot support abortion, without supporting the notion that other people get to determine who is unworthy of existence, or who/what is considered human.

TheTexan
04-13-2012, 05:54 PM
We cannot support abortion, without supporting the notion that other people get to determine ... who/what is considered human.

By supporting laws against abortion, you are supporting the notion that you get to determine who/what is considered human.

NTTAWWT, just had to point that wee bit of hypocrisy.

azxd
04-13-2012, 05:54 PM
You can be a libertarian and be pro-life or pro-choice.

It depends on when you want to begin affording rights to a life, or, when you believe the fetus becomes an actual person. If you don't think that a 1 month old fetus is a person, then you can support early term abortions.

It's all really a matter of opinion.I'll give ya some REP for providing an honest perspective ... Personally I don't care what someone else believes about this.
If they want the title of Libertarian ... This subject is one of many, and in my mind it will never define what a Libertarian is.

TheTexan
04-13-2012, 05:54 PM
I think both sides of the argument are valid. However, on any given issue, where support for either side is divided roughly down the middle, I believe no law should be passed, because any law would simply be a tyranny of the majority. It just happens that passing no law on this is consistent with pro-choice.

Pro-life people object to this line of reasoning because "abortion is murder." The problem is, that's their opinion. They say, no, it's a fact, it's murder, and so on. But a very large portion of society doesn't agree that it's murder. So it's their opinion.

About half of people have the pro-life opinion. The other half of people have the pro-choice opinion. Shouldn't be passing laws based on majority opinion. No law passed = pro-choice inadvertently wins.

Just IMO.

Philosophy_of_Politics
04-13-2012, 06:02 PM
By supporting laws against abortion, you are supporting the notion that you get to determine who/what is considered human.

NTTAWWT, just had to point that wee bit of hypocrisy.

Not exactly. I view abortion to be no different than discarding a newborn/infant/dependent in the dumpster, which seems to be a common thing nowadays. We have laws condemning one, but not the other. Both of those require the thought process, of wishing to get rid of the child which can be inspired due to various things (often stress/fear/depression). Either one, requires the psychological capability to eliminate that bond (despite the consequences), in order to fulfill an alternative desire/motive.

azxd
04-13-2012, 06:08 PM
I think many forget the original meaning behind Roe V Wade ... It is my understanding that it protected the female from moral/legal persecution for a choice that was/is made.

The topic is a HOT one, so I'll bow out, for now, by saying that it is not my decision to make for another, and only add that government should leave people alone, and let them make the decisions they make.

FrankRep
04-13-2012, 06:08 PM
You can be a libertarian and be pro-life or pro-choice.

Doesn't murder violate the Non-aggression principle of libertarianism?

Philosophy_of_Politics
04-13-2012, 06:11 PM
Doesn't murder violate the Non-aggression principle of libertarianism?

Initiation of Force, so, yes.

But Libertarianism is a philosophy which views all of us to be individuals, and that we're not divided into classes. I believe categorizing the unborn, as being not human, is equivalent to elitists viewing serfs to be inferior; therefore, unworthy of existence when they deem fit.

Democrat4Paul
04-13-2012, 06:14 PM
Remind me never to visit this godforsaken State

Arizona: We hate Freedom, Personal Choice, and lack Faith. Come Live and Play Here!


/new state moto

FrankRep
04-13-2012, 06:18 PM
Remind me never to visit this godforsaken State

Arizona: We hate Freedom, Personal Choice, and lack Faith. Come Live and Play Here!

/new state moto

Ron Paul is pro-life. As a Democrat, does that offend you?

dannno
04-13-2012, 06:19 PM
Doesn't murder violate the Non-aggression principle of libertarianism?

Murdering a person, yes. I don't consider a 1 month old fetus in their mother's womb a real person, yet.

Philosophy_of_Politics
04-13-2012, 06:21 PM
Murdering a person, yes. I don't consider a 1 month old fetus in their mother's womb a real person, yet.

Age old question though. I'm not taking offense to objective responses, such as yours. However, what is your definition of when personhood actually begins?

Democrat4Paul
04-13-2012, 06:22 PM
Ron Paul is pro-life. As a Democrat, does that offend you?Nope. In fact I respect his Pro Life stance and consider its principles more when I don't have a person, no more then you or I, standing OVER me dictating it

Ron Paul is a decent person for having the faith to let others "live and let live" without using the law of God to oppress them

Obviously a hard thing for many others to do

TheTexan
04-13-2012, 06:23 PM
Doesn't [abortion] violate the Non-aggression principle of libertarianism?

Polarizing language removed for sake of argument. Doesn't throwing people in jail for making decisions regarding their own body violate the non-aggression principle of libertarianism?

azxd
04-13-2012, 06:24 PM
Murdering a person, yes. I don't consider a 1 month old fetus in their mother's womb a real person, yet.Prepare to have the MORALS of another invoked upon you, for speaking your mind ;)

FrankRep
04-13-2012, 06:24 PM
Nope. In fact I respect his Pro Life stance and consider its principles more when I don't have a person, no more then you or I, standing OVER me dictating it

Ron Paul is a decent person for having the faith to let others "live and let live" without using the law of God to oppress them

Obviously a hard thing for many others to do

What do you think about this bill?

H.R.1094 - Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1094/show)

Sponsor: Ron Paul

(1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state . Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure:

(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. Makes this Act applicable to any case pending on the date of enactment.

Philosophy_of_Politics
04-13-2012, 06:26 PM
Polarizing language removed for sake of argument. Doesn't throwing people in jail for making decisions regarding their own body violate the non-aggression principle of libertarianism?

I don't believe anyone is advocating "tossing people in jail." I just don't see how anyone can truly be a Libertarian, which supports Individual Rights (Human Rights), and then simultaneously grant themselves the authority to categorize others into classes and determine who is a lesser human-being than themselves.

I view that to be no different than Tyrants throughout History, who determined which class of individuals were considered lesser of a human and were marked for death.

TheTexan
04-13-2012, 06:27 PM
Legislating morality doesn't work. If you want to stop abortion, educate people in how it's wrong.

Democrat4Paul
04-13-2012, 06:28 PM
What do you think about this bill?

H.R.1094 - Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1094/show)

Sponsor: Ron Paul

(1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state . Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure:

(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. Makes this Act applicable to any case pending on the date of enactment.
Leave it to the States and its fine

If I don't like the State I will move from it and call them silly.

Same as I do Arizona

Democrat4Paul
04-13-2012, 06:33 PM
Legislating morality doesn't work. If you want to stop abortion, educate people in how it's wrong.Also, let me flip the page a little

IMO some of the reaction believers have to abortion is....human. A Christian reaction would be to pray, pray, and pray. To forgive and grant grace.

The human reaction is "how gross and evil and bad and WE must stop it." Which is a species relating to a species and nothing more

A Christian reaction imo is more "God forgive them BUT the baby is with Jesus now"

Why does a baby never of THIS world need protection from....Jesus?

TheTexan
04-13-2012, 06:34 PM
I don't believe anyone is advocating "tossing people in jail."

So... for murdering a person, you'd simply say "please don't do that again"? Isn't that kind of the point of defining it as murder? So murderers can be thrown in jail?


I just don't see how anyone can truly be a Libertarian, which supports Individual Rights (Human Rights), and then simultaneously grant themselves the authority to categorize others into classes and determine who is a lesser human-being than themselves.

At the point of conception, a house fly is more developed than that "human." You have no objections to killing house flies, right? The only thing that the human cells have at that point that the fly does not is a more promising DNA sequence.

The promise of life != life. So unless you want us to stop killing houseflies, I don't buy the "life at conception" argument.


I view that to be no different than Tyrants throughout History, who determined which class of individuals were considered lesser of a human and were marked for death.

This is a moral argument. There is no right or wrong answer here. Enforcing the morality of the majority is its own tyranny.

Philosophy_of_Politics
04-13-2012, 06:41 PM
So... for murdering a person, you'd simply say "please don't do that again"? Isn't that kind of the point of defining it as murder? So murderers can be thrown in jail?



At the point of conception, a house fly is more developed than that "human." You have no objections to killing house flies, right? The only thing that the human cells have at that point that the fly does not is a more promising DNA sequence.

The promise of life != life. So unless you want us to stop killing houseflies, I don't buy the "life at conception" argument.



This is a moral argument. There is no right or wrong answer here. Enforcing the morality of the majority is its own tyranny.

I'm not advocating sentences, because the argument is not revolving around the legal system quite yet. What we're discussing, is Libertarian views, morality vs. immorality, science, psychology, and sociology. Which are required first, before understanding how to approach this politically/legally.

If a human (male) and human (female) must require human DNA and a functional human reproductive system in order to create a human being. How does something become not human in a 9-month time period?

Feeding the Abscess
04-13-2012, 06:43 PM
Initiation of Force, so, yes.

But Libertarianism is a philosophy which views all of us to be individuals, and that we're not divided into classes. I believe categorizing the unborn, as being not human, is equivalent to elitists viewing serfs to be inferior; therefore, unworthy of existence when they deem fit.

If the fetus is a human, then it absolutely does not have the right to force its mother to care for it. If it is human and has that right it must mean that:

Groups have rights

Or, the more logically and philosophically consistent position, all people have the right to force someone else to take care of them.

The government will never solve this issue without interfering with somebody's rights.

TheTexan
04-13-2012, 06:44 PM
The government will never solve this issue without interfering with somebody's rights.

Precisely correct

Brian4Liberty
04-13-2012, 06:45 PM
See!! I knew it!

It's worse than you think.

You must see the following video on this subject:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-11-2012/bro-choice

Philosophy_of_Politics
04-13-2012, 06:49 PM
If the fetus is a human, then it absolutely does not have the right to force its mother to care for it. If it is human and has that right it must mean that:

Groups have rights

Or, the more logically and philosophically consistent position, all people have the right to force someone else to take care of them.

The government will never solve this issue without interfering with somebody's rights.

According to your argument, a fetus being declared human, would mean that it does not have the right to force the mother to care for it. But, considering that in that stage it's considered a dependent (as we all were at one point), how can it force someone to do something else when it does not initiate force? It merely exists, and is dependent on the care of the woman which is bonded with it.

It cannot initiate force, simply because it did not make that decision. It did not choose, to be there. It did not choose, to be the dependent. It merely exists, and is living, and is being sustained/developed by another life. This is happening, so it may develop away from its stage of dependency, and into one of us.

Feeding the Abscess
04-13-2012, 06:59 PM
According to your argument, a fetus being declared human, would mean that it does not have the right to force the mother to care for it. But, considering that in that stage it's considered a dependent (as we all were at one point), how can it force someone to do something else when it does not initiate force? It merely exists, and is dependent on the care of the woman which is bonded with it.

It cannot initiate force, simply because it did not make that decision. It did not choose, to be there. It did not choose, to be the dependent. It merely exists, and is living, and is being sustained/developed by another life. This is happening, so it may develop away from its stage of dependency, and into one of us.

Would the government forcing the mother to continue the pregnancy against her will not be forcing her to care for the fetus? If someone is beaten within an inch of their life and falls into a vegetative state, would turning off their machines be murder? Surely, they didn't choose to be beaten, much less to a degree that nearly ends their life.

TheTexan
04-13-2012, 06:59 PM
If a human (male) and human (female) must require human DNA and a functional human reproductive system in order to create a human being. How does something become not human in a 9-month time period?

Why does being human even matter? Isn't that itself classifying organisms into groups and giving humans preferential treatment? Humanity is simply DNA. There's no logical reason to give rights to one set of cells because it has the right DNA.

We give a lot of protection to animals, for example dogs. We look down on killing/abusing dogs. We throw dog abusers in prison. Cows, on the other hand, we murder all the time. Because beef is delicious. We have a good reason for killing cows.

Is a dog somehow superior to a cow? No. It comes down to morals. They are both relatively low-functioning life forms, so ideally we wouldn't kill either. But again, beef is delicious. So we're ok with it. If a cow was born that was miraculously able to talk & laugh, aside from the desire to study it scientifically, would we still be ok with killing it for beef?

Similarly with the fly. A fly is even farther down on the "functional life" scale than a cow. Their behavior is mostly entirely mechanical, with very little neurological activity. We squish them without a thought.

Human cells at conception have zero neurological activity. They don't have neurons. At all. Why do these cells deserve protection, whereas the cow does not?

Terri Schiavo was also low functioning. A great many people were ok with killing her, yet she was human.

Lucille
04-13-2012, 07:05 PM
It must be getting close to election time. They're throwing that red meat (NPI) out to the factions instead of doing productive things that might actually help their constituents, like restoring contract law, going after the banksters and clearing the bad debt, lightening the regulatory and tax loads, and cutting government to the bone. But no! They have to have the factions at each other's throats so people go to the polls and reelect them...so they can wreak more havoc upon us all!

In other AZ news, Tea Party® conservative and fair weather-federalist (http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/04/arizona-governor-vetoes-sheriffs-first-bill/) (BIRM (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamacare-war-drugs)) Jan Brewer vetoed the sheriffs first bill.

Philosophy_of_Politics
04-13-2012, 07:09 PM
Would the government forcing the mother to continue the pregnancy against her will not be forcing her to care for the fetus? If someone is beaten within an inch of their life and falls into a vegetative state, would turning off their machines be murder? Surely, they didn't choose to be beaten, much less to a degree that nearly ends their life.

We the people were granted the power to defend the life and liberty of all individuals, from enemies foreign and domestic. In order to protect life and liberty, we have to initiate force and laws on those who deprive others of those same individual rights. We cannot defend life and liberty of all individuals, if we begin granting the authority (power) to specific individuals, to establish who is considered human, an individual, or equal (AKA: more or less human). We would be shattering the meaning of human rights, entirely, in doing so. Similar to how our current representatives, have already categorized us as not being entitled to the same individual rights.

Bosco Warden
04-13-2012, 07:14 PM
Arizona if folding under the pressure, this bill sounds to outrageous it has to be planned this way.

It's going to change minds, and it will work.

Danke
04-13-2012, 07:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

James Madison
04-13-2012, 08:02 PM
Murdering a person, yes. I don't consider a 1 month old fetus in their mother's womb a real person, yet.

There's no genetic difference between a 1 month old fetus and that fetus fully grown as an adult.

Danke
04-13-2012, 08:04 PM
There's no genetic difference between a 1 month old fetus and that fetus fully grown as an adult.

But what about brain activity?

James Madison
04-13-2012, 08:16 PM
But what about brain activity?

What about it? Brain activity isn't a requirement for life. It's a strange phenomenon exhibited my only a select few species.

Danke
04-13-2012, 08:20 PM
What about it? Brain activity isn't a requirement for life. It's a strange phenomenon exhibited my only a select few species.

So should we require hospitals to keep the brain dead alive, indefinably?

James Madison
04-13-2012, 08:22 PM
So should we require hospitals to keep the brain dead alive, indefinably?

Depends if the brain dead had indicated their wishes during life. If not, you can't morally pull the plug.

PierzStyx
04-13-2012, 08:28 PM
Still the only policy where I must abandon my Libertarian views. I simply cannot support abortion.


Opposing abortion is truly libertarian. Abortion is the greatest act of aggression against the weakest opponent there is. All people enjoy their rights unless those rights hurt others. Abortion hurts others. The child is killed. Libertarians should opposed it just on the grounds of philosophy alone. That they do not has always baffled me.

Danke
04-13-2012, 08:31 PM
Depends if the brain dead had indicated their wishes during life. If not, you can't morally pull the plug.

And the brain dead soon to become brain aware...

James Madison
04-13-2012, 08:38 PM
And the brain dead soon to become brain aware...

You mean a person who is brain dead and recovers? You can't predict a patient making a recovery except in rare cases. We can predict that fetus in the mother's womb will result in pregnancy.

Danke
04-13-2012, 08:40 PM
You mean a person who is brain dead and recovers? You can't predict a patient making a recovery except in rare cases. We can predict that fetus in the mother's womb will result in pregnancy.

no, I was referring to a fetus.

James Madison
04-13-2012, 08:43 PM
no, I was referring to a fetus.

Oh. A fetus cannot give consent. Abortion is therefore an act of force against it.

QuickZ06
04-13-2012, 09:14 PM
Or people could just use protection, and the morning after pill. I cannot understand how in 2012 we still have people who cannot practice smart sex. Pull out, wear a condom and make sure the girl you are with is on a from BC if she can or is willing to. Pretty sure the fraction of non planned births would go down dramatically. But then again we live amongst sheep.

cstarace
04-13-2012, 09:21 PM
Leave it to the States and its fine

If I don't like the State I will move from it and call them silly.

Same as I do Arizona
Under Dr. Paul's bill, it would not be left to the states. Abortion would be illegal federally. The only part left up to the states would be how to prosecute the crime, similar to how states prosecute murder.

dillo
04-13-2012, 11:04 PM
Opposing abortion is truly libertarian. Abortion is the greatest act of aggression against the weakest opponent there is. All people enjoy their rights unless those rights hurt others. Abortion hurts others. The child is killed. Libertarians should opposed it just on the grounds of philosophy alone. That they do not has always baffled me.

I agree with what you are saying but,

All pregnancies are a risk to the mothers life, abortion is murder, but it's self defense. I don't like the idea of the government telling a rape victim that she has to give birth to a child; No matter how rare that circumstance is. I don't think the government should be able to tell someone who is at risk of dying during pregnanacy that if they have an abortion then they will be charged with murder.

Vanilluxe
04-13-2012, 11:07 PM
Or people could just use protection, and the morning after pill. I cannot understand how in 2012 we still have people who cannot practice smart sex. Pull out, wear a condom and make sure the girl you are with is on a from BC if she can or is willing to. Pretty sure the fraction of non planned births would go down dramatically. But then again we live amongst sheep.

Ask the great genius (drum roll) Rick Perry,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngiJhmoFKkw&feature=player_embedded

What an insightful answer!

Democrat4Paul
04-13-2012, 11:25 PM
Under Dr. Paul's bill, it would not be left to the states. Abortion would be illegal federally. The only part left up to the states would be how to prosecute the crime, similar to how states prosecute murder.If that is so I would oppose such a bill on moral and religious grounds. But it does not mean I would oppose Paul. We can disagree, right?

I am not a woman, so its not very important to me.

I have faith in GOD, so its not very important to me.

I would think any baby "murdered" would be with Jesus and never know of this world.

I am in no position to judge or make policy. A guy like Paul is. So, let him.

In short, its not my problem and would rather leave the bloody business of abortion to those who practice it.

I sleep well at night knowing I am right with the Lord at the end of the day. I couldn't careless about others. My word to them: May god forgive you and grant you grace

And may I be granted the same

Feeding the Abscess
04-14-2012, 12:21 AM
Under Dr. Paul's bill, it would not be left to the states. Abortion would be illegal federally. The only part left up to the states would be how to prosecute the crime, similar to how states prosecute murder.

And under that same bill, Ron Paul would have been charged with countless acts of murder for prescribing hormonal birth control and morning after pills, giving estrogen shots to a rape victim, as well as charged with inciting acts of violence for promoting all of these actions.

He's also stated many times that he wants no federal laws, no amendments to the Constitution, and no federal government involvement in the issue.

Vanilluxe
04-14-2012, 12:41 AM
Legally death means that the heart stops beating, so life should mean when the heart begins to beat. There are some people who said the stages before has the potential to produce life, however, cryonics allows life even after the heart stops beating, what reaction comes in must go out.

libertybrewcity
04-14-2012, 09:39 AM
These bills go too far.

Lishy
04-14-2012, 09:41 AM
Each time I jerk off, god kills babies?

Makes sense?

According to Arizona, at least...

osan
04-14-2012, 10:06 AM
Well, I think this is taking it too far....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/10/az-abortion-bills-arizona-gestational-age_n_1415715.html

And here my friends we have a fine and a truly textbook example of why "states rights" is nonsense, and that is putting it in an overly kind way. Tyranny by the state is no different from that of a central government. Preferring states' rights over that of the feds is like preferring death by gunshot to dying in a house fire.

Advocacy of states' rights is patent insanity just as is that of a strong central government. States' rights orientations are only marginally better in practice, but it is still rankly stupid to support this idea.

Retroactive pregnancy. Really? So AZ has now officially stuck its nose into the twats of its women. How charming. I really don't give a shit what the so-called "pro-life" people say, this is nobody's business but that of the woman. Yeah, abortion sucks ass - on that I completely agree. That does not entitle others to mind the business of others in this manner. People need to get their heads out of their anuses and take a lesson in consistency. This is EXACTLY the sort of shit that the *** liberals rightly worry about. MYOFB.

If you want your freedoms respected, be damned sure that you are going to afford others the same no matter how much you may disagree with their choices.

JebSanderson
04-14-2012, 10:11 AM
... calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman, which would move the beginning of a pregnancy up two weeks prior to conception.


What the hell.

That's how pregnancies are always calculated by OB/GYN's. They always ask the woman when her last period was and from there they calculate the approximate gestational age of the child. They know that the chances of conception are only high during a certain time frame after menstruation, so they use her last period as a reference point.

It's even in the article...


But while the bill's definition of when pregnancy begins is new in legislation, it's not necessarily new for doctors. Elizabeth Nash, states issues manager for Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research organization in Washington, said it corresponds with how doctors typically determine gestational age. She said since the exact date of conception cannot be pinpointed, doctors use the day of the woman's last menstrual period to gauge the duration of a pregnancy. The method does not provide an exact date.

JebSanderson
04-14-2012, 10:14 AM
These bills go too far.

Not far enough, in my opinion. Short of banning all abortions, with no exceptions and charging the "doctor" with murder and the mother with manslaughter (at the minimum) I don't see any abortion bill being "far enough".

Democrat4Paul
04-14-2012, 04:17 PM
Not far enough, in my opinion. Short of banning all abortions, with no exceptions and charging the "doctor" with murder and the mother with manslaughter (at the minimum) I don't see any abortion bill being "far enough".That's judgement by God's standard, and none of your business by human standard's. You cannot say it is murder or manslaughter.

It is cruel to make a child be of this earth when the child can be of the Lord and never know of this evil place. We have no right to intervene in that. Nor take the sins of the mother off the cross and place them back upon her by equating her with the likes of Charles Manson.

It is outrageous and freedom hating on all levels. The unborn are in heaven, and you would take that from them? And judge the mother a murderer?

This sounds like overstepping the line to me. Who among us wants to answer for that when we face our maker?

JebSanderson
04-14-2012, 04:37 PM
That's judgement by God's standard, and none of your business by human standard's. You cannot say it is murder or manslaughter.

It is cruel to make a child be of this earth when the child can be of the Lord and never know of this evil place. We have no right to intervene in that. Nor take the sins of the mother off the cross and place them back upon her by equating her with the likes of Charles Manson.

It is outrageous and freedom hating on all levels. The unborn are in heaven, and you would take that from them? And judge the mother a murderer?

This sounds like overstepping the line to me. Who among us wants to answer for that when we face our maker?

Uh...wtf?

So it's fine for a mother to murder her child because the child will got heaven? Why shouldn't it be legal to murder a 1 month old then? That baby would go to heaven as well. Why not make it legal to murder a nun? She'll probably go to heaven anyway.

Someone who kills an innocent human being is a murderer, regardless of the age of the murdered.

PierzStyx
04-16-2012, 01:59 AM
I agree with what you are saying but,

All pregnancies are a risk to the mothers life, abortion is murder, but it's self defense. I don't like the idea of the government telling a rape victim that she has to give birth to a child; No matter how rare that circumstance is. I don't think the government should be able to tell someone who is at risk of dying during pregnanacy that if they have an abortion then they will be charged with murder.

Some one who has a medical doctor rule their life in danger from the pregnancy should be able to seek an abortion, and this is justified under the idea that one is justified in taking another life if they are posing an immediate threat to your own. But to just say all pregnancies are dangerous so abortion should be allowed for all is just ludicrous. In fact in most cases abortions are more likely to do harm to the mother than giving birth is. As for rape, the only justification for taking another life is when it threatens your own. The idea that abortion should be allowed for rape is on bar with the foolish idea that I government should have been able to arrests and execute you for the crimes of Osama bin Laden. It may not be emotionally popular, but the protection of life, the right to life, is more important than almost all other considerations. A rape victim needs counseling, not to become an accessory to manslaughter.

PierzStyx
04-16-2012, 02:02 AM
And here my friends we have a fine and a truly textbook example of why "states rights" is nonsense, and that is putting it in an overly kind way. Tyranny by the state is no different from that of a central government. Preferring states' rights over that of the feds is like preferring death by gunshot to dying in a house fire.

Advocacy of states' rights is patent insanity just as is that of a strong central government. States' rights orientations are only marginally better in practice, but it is still rankly stupid to support this idea.

Retroactive pregnancy. Really? So AZ has now officially stuck its nose into the twats of its women. How charming. I really don't give a shit what the so-called "pro-life" people say, this is nobody's business but that of the woman. Yeah, abortion sucks ass - on that I completely agree. That does not entitle others to mind the business of others in this manner. People need to get their heads out of their anuses and take a lesson in consistency. This is EXACTLY the sort of shit that the *** liberals rightly worry about. MYOFB.

If you want your freedoms respected, be damned sure that you are going to afford others the same no matter how much you may disagree with their choices.

The states are bound to obey The Constitution. The federal government and state government were originally supposed to be checks and balances to each other. The state has power to pass a law, but the Supreme Court can strike those laws down on the basis of violating The Constitution. That things are so out of wack is a sign of the times. That said, these laws will be struck down, no doubt. So stop sweating it.

PierzStyx
04-16-2012, 02:04 AM
That's judgement by God's standard, and none of your business by human standard's. You cannot say it is murder or manslaughter.

It is cruel to make a child be of this earth when the child can be of the Lord and never know of this evil place. We have no right to intervene in that. Nor take the sins of the mother off the cross and place them back upon her by equating her with the likes of Charles Manson.

It is outrageous and freedom hating on all levels. The unborn are in heaven, and you would take that from them? And judge the mother a murderer?

This sounds like overstepping the line to me. Who among us wants to answer for that when we face our maker?

You make no sense. God sends spirits to exist on Earth, to live. To end those lives for any cause other than self-defense is MURDER and one of the vilest sins you can commit. Abortion kills innocent life. To allow it for any reason other than the protection of the life of the mother is to invite the killing of innocent children, definitely a sin in the eyes of God.

nayjevin
04-16-2012, 06:46 AM
Some one who has a medical doctor rule their life in danger from the pregnancy should be able to seek an abortion

I see that solution as similar in practice to medicinal marijuana. Cheech, PHD


As for rape, the only justification for taking another life is when it threatens your own. The idea that abortion should be allowed for rape is on bar with the foolish idea that I government should have been able to arrests and execute you for the crimes of Osama bin Laden. It may not be emotionally popular, but the protection of life, the right to life, is more important than almost all other considerations. A rape victim needs counseling, not to become an accessory to manslaughter.

Any attempt at an objective measure of what can be deemed a threat requires laws, agencies, and therefore inevitable bureaucracies and invasions into personal matters.

As to the ethical issue, I see pregnancies in which there is truly a threat to the mother's life (like, almost for sure will result in the mother's death) to be one of the very few real world scenarios where abortion may be the 'right' choice. But as you say, that's extremely rare.

speciallyblend
04-16-2012, 08:09 AM
it is so arizona can have more babies so they can lock them up at 16 with the drug war, the sheriff anti-constitution has a plan to lock them up so they can feed of the system.

Evangelical_Protestant
04-16-2012, 08:11 AM
.56

Warrior_of_Freedom
04-16-2012, 10:47 AM
I don't think trying to force people not to get abortions is the right way to go about things.

osan
04-16-2012, 05:11 PM
So stop sweating it.

Not sweating anything, but pointing out the hazards of the flawed thinking that is rampant in every quarter of conventional thinking. By and large, people have gone off their rockers in many more ways than just this. That we seated the men we have since Reagan is clear enough evidence.

What is disturbing is the fact of the thought processes behind these and other maniacal laws. We put idiots into office and then wonder why the world burns down around us.