AZ passes law saying life beings pre-conception

[Jarhead]

Meh, we're all nearly liquid...

It comes down to the age. The age of a human being. Biologists refer to embryo as humans at an early stage of development.

Once you guys deem it A-OK to kill babies up to the age of 2-3, then you'll start focusing on others.

It's the way monsters work.

Don't get me wrong here kosher while I respect your views as I do others, it's just my humble opinion that our Constitutional Framers understood these sorts of moral questions and opposing views and thus created the 1st Amendment for it, allowing everyone to express them. The problem is when you have so many opposing views on this question it becomes a moral issue rather than a legislative one, and rightly belongs in the pulpit or the homes of Americans and not the books of Laws that Americans must abide by.

I agree 100%....

But whereas I am pro choice.....I personally battle with the question of "is abortion murder"...and all of us agree that whereas murdering someone (other than a fetus) may be "someones choice", there is vaid reason for there to be laws against it.

As I said in an earlier post......like it or not, there is stronger suientific evidence that a fetus is a living human being, than it not a living.

It is not just a mass of cells...it requires human anti bodies and human blood cells to survive.

So we know it is human.

Is it a living human being?

Well.....if it were not living, then why does it die when separated from human antiobodlies and human blood.

There is valid reason to be against abortion...it has nothing to do with being against "choice".

 

[g5000]

This is what aggravates me about partisans on both sides. Rather than debate a point based on its merits, they MAKE SHIT UP instead. Because they are too weak-minded to defend their position, so they invent a lie or parrot something they heard someone else say.

You really should be wondering why you can only parrot stuff and can't stand on your own two feet. If you can only lie and repeat lies, that's a pretty good sign your intellect is very, very weak and your position undefendable.

 

[g5000]

The law says that a woman whose pregnancy is at the gestational age of 20 weeks or less must submit to an ultrasound and be informed of the development of the life they are about to snuff out.

I defy anyone to ask an OB/GYN if that is an improper use of the term "gestational age" or it if means life begins two weeks before conception.

It is a benchmark. It is not defining life as beginning two weeks before conception, you ignorant goons.

You should have been debating whether or not a woman should have to have an ultrasound and jump over all the other legal hurdles to get an abortion.

But, no. You thought it better to make shit up. And you proved to the world you are either stupid or liars.

Well done!

 

[g5000]

I guarantee at least one or two people in this topic will continue to perpetuate the lie that Arizona lawmakers defined life as beginning two weeks before conception.

Because lying is how they roll.

How do I know this? Because we have been here before. Now their integrity is completely shot.

 

[Navy1960]

Meh, we're all nearly liquid...

It comes down to the age. The age of a human being. Biologists refer to embryo as humans at an early stage of development.

Once you guys deem it A-OK to kill babies up to the age of 2-3, then you'll start focusing on others.

It's the way monsters work.

Don't get me wrong here kosher while I respect your views as I do others, it's just my humble opinion that our Constitutional Framers understood these sorts of moral questions and opposing views and thus created the 1st Amendment for it, allowing everyone to express them. The problem is when you have so many opposing views on this question it becomes a moral issue rather than a legislative one, and rightly belongs in the pulpit or the homes of Americans and not the books of Laws that Americans must abide by.

I agree 100%....

But whereas I am pro choice.....I personally battle with the question of "is abortion murder"...and all of us agree that whereas murdering someone (other than a fetus) may be "someones choice", there is vaid reason for there to be laws against it.

As I said in an earlier post......like it or not, there is stronger suientific evidence that a fetus is a living human being, than it not a living.

It is not just a mass of cells...it requires human anti bodies and human blood cells to survive.

So we know it is human.

Is it a living human being?

Well.....if it were not living, then why does it die when separated from human antiobodlies and human blood.

There is valid reason to be against abortion...it has nothing to do with being against "choice".

While I agree with you, I tend to see this issue as a personal moral one, especially when it comes down to where life begins. I think it's reasonable to suggest here to people that protecting viable unborn babies is not without merit. However that said, where I generally part company on this issue with some is when it comes down to an "all or nothing" and legislating that based on one religions view of when life begins. You see the last time I read the 1st Amendment it didn't mention a specific religion and yet, here in Arizona that seems to not matter much. One other thing to consider here as well, I wonder if a person is as they say they are "pro-life" then how do they square the death penalty with that. As for myself on a personal level I tend to be of the Barry Goldwater mold, in that while I think "abortion" in most cases can be avoided and is outright wrong when the life the mother carries can fully sustain itself, for me to advocate or impose a moral view upon my fellow citizens is wrong as well.

 

[Navy1960]

I guarantee at least one or two people in this topic will continue to perpetuate the lie that Arizona lawmakers defined life as beginning two weeks before conception.

Because lying is how they roll.

How do I know this? Because we have been here before. Now their integrity is completely shot.

13. "Unborn child" means the offspring of human beings from
conception until birth.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/hb2036s.pdf

Hopefully this clears it up some.

 

[syrenn]

the allegedly 'small government GOP'er Jan Brewer has signed into law saying, essentially, life begins two weeks before conception.

so now, every time you ovulate...congrats you're a mom.

nutters...

AllGov - News - Arizona Law Declares Life Begins before Conception: Update

the statute...one of the most disgusting i've ever read.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/adopted/s.2036jud.pdf

AZ has gone crazy. So is having your period murder or suicide?

 

[Jarhead]

Don't get me wrong here kosher while I respect your views as I do others, it's just my humble opinion that our Constitutional Framers understood these sorts of moral questions and opposing views and thus created the 1st Amendment for it, allowing everyone to express them. The problem is when you have so many opposing views on this question it becomes a moral issue rather than a legislative one, and rightly belongs in the pulpit or the homes of Americans and not the books of Laws that Americans must abide by.

I agree 100%....

But whereas I am pro choice.....I personally battle with the question of "is abortion murder"...and all of us agree that whereas murdering someone (other than a fetus) may be "someones choice", there is vaid reason for there to be laws against it.

As I said in an earlier post......like it or not, there is stronger suientific evidence that a fetus is a living human being, than it not a living.

It is not just a mass of cells...it requires human anti bodies and human blood cells to survive.

So we know it is human.

Is it a living human being?

Well.....if it were not living, then why does it die when separated from human antiobodlies and human blood.

There is valid reason to be against abortion...it has nothing to do with being against "choice".

While I agree with you, I tend to see this issue as a personal moral one, especially when it comes down to where life begins. I think it's reasonable to suggest here to people that protecting viable unborn babies is not without merit. However that said, where I generally part company on this issue with some is when it comes down to an "all or nothing" and legislating that based on one religions view of when life begins. You see the last time I read the 1st Amendment it didn't mention a specific religion and yet, here in Arizona that seems to not matter much. One other thing to consider here as well, I wonder if a person is as they say they are "pro-life" then how do they square the death penalty with that. As for myself on a personal level I tend to be of the Barry Goldwater mold, in that while I think "abortion" in most cases can be avoided and is outright wrong when the life the mother carries can fully sustain itself, for me to advocate or impose a moral view upon my fellow citizens is wrong as well.

I agree.

But is it really a moral issue?

When life begins is a sicentific issue. If a being needs to be "aborted" to die, then it must have been alive. If, when alive, it requires human antibodies and human blood to survive, then it is a live human. Basic scientific evidence that a fetus is a living human being. A larva is no less alive than the butterfly it develops into.

Look at marcipials...the fetus is OUTSIDE the body...has use of all of its limbs.

Science seems to support that a fetus is alive.

Now...not aborting to save the mothers life? That is a moral issue. Not aborting despite the fact that the child will be a vegetable? That is a moral issue.

It is not nearly as cut and dry as many pro choice people tend to make it.

 

[BDBoop]

I guarantee at least one or two people in this topic will continue to perpetuate the lie that Arizona lawmakers defined life as beginning two weeks before conception.

Because lying is how they roll.

How do I know this? Because we have been here before. Now their integrity is completely shot.

13. "Unborn child" means the offspring of human beings from
conception until birth.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/hb2036s.pdf

Hopefully this clears it up some.

And technically two weeks before, thereby kicking the literal twenty-week cutoff back to 18 weeks.

 

[BDBoop]

the allegedly 'small government GOP'er Jan Brewer has signed into law saying, essentially, life begins two weeks before conception.

so now, every time you ovulate...congrats you're a mom.

nutters...

AllGov - News - Arizona Law Declares Life Begins before Conception: Update

the statute...one of the most disgusting i've ever read.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/adopted/s.2036jud.pdf

AZ has gone crazy. So is having your period murder or suicide?

I find that both generally occur. First I make their lives a living hell, then they kill themselves.

I guess that makes me a carrier.

Lady comic, several decades ago. "Return of the Menstrual Murderess! They couldn't find her. She was a periodic maniac."

 

[koshergrl]

No, not technically before. Nobody except you loons are saying that the baby actually exists from two weeks prior to conception.

And you're just saying it to muddy the water.

 

[koshergrl]

I agree 100%....

But whereas I am pro choice.....I personally battle with the question of "is abortion murder"...and all of us agree that whereas murdering someone (other than a fetus) may be "someones choice", there is vaid reason for there to be laws against it.

As I said in an earlier post......like it or not, there is stronger suientific evidence that a fetus is a living human being, than it not a living.

It is not just a mass of cells...it requires human anti bodies and human blood cells to survive.

So we know it is human.

Is it a living human being?

Well.....if it were not living, then why does it die when separated from human antiobodlies and human blood.

There is valid reason to be against abortion...it has nothing to do with being against "choice".

While I agree with you, I tend to see this issue as a personal moral one, especially when it comes down to where life begins. I think it's reasonable to suggest here to people that protecting viable unborn babies is not without merit. However that said, where I generally part company on this issue with some is when it comes down to an "all or nothing" and legislating that based on one religions view of when life begins. You see the last time I read the 1st Amendment it didn't mention a specific religion and yet, here in Arizona that seems to not matter much. One other thing to consider here as well, I wonder if a person is as they say they are "pro-life" then how do they square the death penalty with that. As for myself on a personal level I tend to be of the Barry Goldwater mold, in that while I think "abortion" in most cases can be avoided and is outright wrong when the life the mother carries can fully sustain itself, for me to advocate or impose a moral view upon my fellow citizens is wrong as well.

I agree.

But is it really a moral issue?

When life begins is a sicentific issue. If a being needs to be "aborted" to die, then it must have been alive. If, when alive, it requires human antibodies and human blood to survive, then it is a live human. Basic scientific evidence that a fetus is a living human being. A larva is no less alive than the butterfly it develops into.

Look at marcipials...the fetus is OUTSIDE the body...has use of all of its limbs.

Science seems to support that a fetus is alive.

Now...not aborting to save the mothers life? That is a moral issue. Not aborting despite the fact that the child will be a vegetable? That is a moral issue.

It is not nearly as cut and dry as many pro choice people tend to make it.

Nobody proposes that abortion be prevented to save a mother's life. They never have. That's another myth propagated by the pro-abortion movement.

 

[BDBoop]

Full-Auto is. That's exactly what he said. G5000 as well. They agree that that's the date that ob-gyn's use, therefore the bill is perfectly fine!

 

[Old Rocks]

I thought liberals believed in science?

Technically, a sperm and egg are living things. Just like our blood cells are living things. And plants are living. And fruit flies. And grass. And a cockroach. It depends on your definition of "life" I suppose. Is a sperm or egg a human life yet? No, I dont think so. But it is "life".

But then again...liberals have historically supported or even advocated the idea of eugenics, so it's not suprising they are anti-life.

I see. So everytime I bark a knuckle and bleed a bit, I have committed an abortion? Multiple abortions?

Your logic is damned nebulous.

 

[koshergrl]

No, yours is, as nobody has proposed that.

A human is not the same as human tissue or fluid.

 

[BDBoop]

While I agree with you, I tend to see this issue as a personal moral one, especially when it comes down to where life begins. I think it's reasonable to suggest here to people that protecting viable unborn babies is not without merit. However that said, where I generally part company on this issue with some is when it comes down to an "all or nothing" and legislating that based on one religions view of when life begins. You see the last time I read the 1st Amendment it didn't mention a specific religion and yet, here in Arizona that seems to not matter much. One other thing to consider here as well, I wonder if a person is as they say they are "pro-life" then how do they square the death penalty with that. As for myself on a personal level I tend to be of the Barry Goldwater mold, in that while I think "abortion" in most cases can be avoided and is outright wrong when the life the mother carries can fully sustain itself, for me to advocate or impose a moral view upon my fellow citizens is wrong as well.

I agree.

But is it really a moral issue?

When life begins is a sicentific issue. If a being needs to be "aborted" to die, then it must have been alive. If, when alive, it requires human antibodies and human blood to survive, then it is a live human. Basic scientific evidence that a fetus is a living human being. A larva is no less alive than the butterfly it develops into.

Look at marcipials...the fetus is OUTSIDE the body...has use of all of its limbs.

Science seems to support that a fetus is alive.

Now...not aborting to save the mothers life? That is a moral issue. Not aborting despite the fact that the child will be a vegetable? That is a moral issue.

It is not nearly as cut and dry as many pro choice people tend to make it.

Nobody proposes that abortion be prevented to save a mother's life. They never have. That's another myth propagated by the pro-abortion movement.

Not so fast there, kemosabe!

Did you know a law has been presented to keep a woman from having an 'abortion' after a miscarriage? She should carry the baby to term, like livestock does. Like livestock do?

Also, if a doctor feels that a woman might abort if she knew her test results, he can withhold them from her.

http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SB1359

You really should stay informed. It's fascinating, what's been written up in the past year.

 

[koshergrl]

You're talking gibberish. Why don't you quote and link that, so I can understand what you're trying to say.

 

[Clementine]

I guarantee at least one or two people in this topic will continue to perpetuate the lie that Arizona lawmakers defined life as beginning two weeks before conception.

Because lying is how they roll.

How do I know this? Because we have been here before. Now their integrity is completely shot.

13. "Unborn child" means the offspring of human beings from
conception until birth.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/hb2036s.pdf

Hopefully this clears it up some.

And technically two weeks before, thereby kicking the literal twenty-week cutoff back to 18 weeks.

You need to go read the actual bill. They are not saying life begins two weeks prior to conception and that is the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. The bill clearly states how the gestational age of the fetus is determined by the doctor using the approx date of the last menstrual cycle. Unborn child is another term for fetus.

I hate it when liberals spread this sort of idiotic propaganda.

Either they are completely baffled by the simplest medical terms or they are doing this on purpose to try and upset people.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The law seems a bit absurd to me but I have to admit in my "head" life seems to begin every time I see sexy curves with little to nothing covering them. Or occasionally not so sexy if I've had a few too many to drink.

 

[Clementine]

I agree.

But is it really a moral issue?

When life begins is a sicentific issue. If a being needs to be "aborted" to die, then it must have been alive. If, when alive, it requires human antibodies and human blood to survive, then it is a live human. Basic scientific evidence that a fetus is a living human being. A larva is no less alive than the butterfly it develops into.

Look at marcipials...the fetus is OUTSIDE the body...has use of all of its limbs.

Science seems to support that a fetus is alive.

Now...not aborting to save the mothers life? That is a moral issue. Not aborting despite the fact that the child will be a vegetable? That is a moral issue.

It is not nearly as cut and dry as many pro choice people tend to make it.

Nobody proposes that abortion be prevented to save a mother's life. They never have. That's another myth propagated by the pro-abortion movement.

Not so fast there, kemosabe!

Did you know a law has been presented to keep a woman from having an 'abortion' after a miscarriage? She should carry the baby to term, like livestock does. Like livestock do?

Also, if a doctor feels that a woman might abort if she knew her test results, he can withhold them from her.

Documents For Bill

You really should stay informed. It's fascinating, what's been written up in the past year.

This is the biggest crock yet. Do you believe everything the radicals tell you?