AZ passes law saying life beings pre-conception

[koshergrl]

Of course they aren't. This is just more lying on the part of pro-abortion psychos. IT'S THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN JUSTIFY KILLING BABIES. When they tell the truth, the only people who support them are eugenecists like themselves, and they are a tiny minority of the population.

 

[Navy1960]

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.

“Today, I applaud and thank Gov. Brewer, Representative Kimberly Yee, Senator Nancy Barto and the many strong, pro-life men and women who led the effort to enact this much-needed law,” said Cathi Herrod, President of Center for Arizona Policy. “HB 2036 provides for the health needs of women considering an abortion, ensuring that women have all the information they need when making this life-changing decision. Abortion not only ends the life of a preborn child, but it also seriously endangers the health and safety of women.”

BREAKING NEWS: Gov. Brewer Signs Bill Prohibiting Abortion After 20 Weeks - Foundations

 

[BDBoop]

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?

It's in the bill. I linked the bill. Read the bill.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

When I say link that, I mean to the specific claims you've made.

Which you haven't, and won't, because you're lying.

 

[BDBoop]

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.

When I say link that, I mean to the specific claims you've made.

Which you haven't, and won't, because you're lying.

Read. The. Bill.

 

[syrenn]

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.

Not if you think about it..... what they are trying to stop is the morning after pill.

 

[koshergrl]

I did. And you're a liar.

Saying that doctors won't be held liable for wrongful life is not the same as saying they can withhold information.

And where is the supporting documentation for the abortion following a miscarriage nonsense?

 

[BDBoop]

Don't know who you're talking to, KG. Guess you'll have to use the quote function like the rest of us poor sods.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm talking to you, liar. As you know, despite your lie to the contrary.

 

[BDBoop]

Oh, look at you. So cute. Okay, try again.

 

[koshergrl]

Please provide the supporting documentation for your statement regarding abortion following miscarriage...

 

[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.

Not if you think about it..... what they are trying to stop is the morning after pill.

I have no problem with the pill.

 

[Navy1960]

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.

Again this is personal opinion Jarhead, but one can see as technology progresses the viability issue gets longer and longer, for example in 1968 a baby born outside the womb at say 6 months had little chance of survival now at 23 weeks according to the AMA theres a 53% chance of survical and it goes up fast as the weeks go by. Now that said, this squares with my original feelings on the subject, but when it comes to matters of regulating "when life begins" to use as a means to curb choices a young lady might have, then that is again where I part company with some respectfully. I tend to think we as a nation often times short sell ourselves with this "all or nothing mentaility" in that it does not give people the ability to think things in a logical manner. I believe that Americans for the most part would not have an issue with laws that regulated Abortion for the above mentioned scenario for viability, but they do tend to part company when it comes to this "all or nothing" on both sides of the issue as to regulating what is clearly a moral issue, " at life inception issues". One only need look at how every religion defines when life begins to understand this.

 

[Clementine]

I did. And you're a liar.

Saying that doctors won't be held liable for wrongful life is not the same as saying they can withhold information.

And where is the supporting documentation for the abortion following a miscarriage nonsense?

There isn't any law denying an abortion after miscarriage and it's obviously another liberal myth designed to scare women.

I know this will go over most liberals' heads or they just don't want to understand, but any good doctor will do tests, including ultrasound, when a woman comes in for an abortion. If the woman wishes to remain ignorant and tells the doctor she doesn't want anything explained to her, I suppose that is her right, but doctors are obligated to explain things to a patient so they have a clear understanding of what is going on and what the treatment plan is.

The poster who started this thread used an article that is purely based on lies.

In order for a doctor to determine the age of the fetus, he has to first calculate the age using a rough estimate, which is halfway between the woman's last menstrual period and the missed period. In many cases, the woman didn't remember the exact date of her last period. This age is later determined more accurately by ultrasound and is adjusted according to the size and development stage of the fetus. The age is referred to as the gestational age. If the woman plans to carry the fetus full term, it determines the due date. If the woman plans to abort, the doctor needs to find out if the fetus is 20 weeks or less.

While the initial calculation assumes that the earliest the woman conceived is two weeks past the last period, that is not carved in stone and merely an initial guess. Only an ultrasound will determine if it was earlier or later than that.

The doctor needs to determine that the gestational age of the fetus isn't past 20 weeks or it is not legal to perform an abortion. Also, the fetus can feel pain after that, not that liberals give a shit about that.

Having an ultrasound prior to abortion is the only way a doctor can determine the accurate gestational age. The bill is specific about the calculation being used only to determine that age and the bill is clear that abortions may be performed up to 20 weeks.

How some get that they are saying life begins at that age, meaning no abortion allowed, is beyond me. It's not difficult at all to understand what the bill is saying or why it's necessary to do things this way.

 

[BDBoop]

Please provide the supporting documentation for your statement regarding abortion following miscarriage...

Look up Representative Terry England. The bill did not pass. Doesn't mean he didn't give it the old college try.

http://jezebel.com/5892657/lawmaker-says-pregnant-ladies-are-a-lot-like-livestock

 

[koshergrl]

Please provide the supporting documentation for your statement regarding abortion following miscarriage...

Look up Representative Terry England. The bill did not pass. Doesn't mean he didn't give it the old college try.

Lawmaker Says Pregnant Ladies are a Lot like Livestock

 

[BDBoop]

Yes, he is cuckoo. And he did introduce the bill, and there's a video showing him saying so.

But there's no war on women.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Clementine -- notice how they ignore your posts? That's how they keep spewing the lies about this, they ignore the truth.

 

[newpolitics]

holy cow..you people call yourselves compassionate human beings
but you all sure didn't mind when Government stepped in to make ABORTIONS legal

Pro-choice is the allowance of choice and individual liberty. Isn't that what this country is all about? How can you want to limit choice in the name of your specific religion and still call yourself an american? It's so hypocritical and preposterous. I understand you want to do something good, and I don't like abortion either, and I'm an atheist, but you have to give people that CHOICE. You do not get to decide for other people because you believe your religion is true. Have some respect for other people's beliefs. A bunch of cells is not a human. It is potential, but not a feeling, breathing human. I don't know at what point it is acceptable to terminate that potential, but there is a point, and it is past conception, and before the nervous system is fully formed, in my opinion. (late-term abortions should not be allowed in my opinion, except under extreme cicrumstances)

I personally do not believe in abortion...but I respect those that feel it is invasive to their choices to ban it, so my tolerance for the beliefs of others has me supporting the pro choice side.

However....the question is not really about choice. It is, and has always been, whether or not abortion is murder...whuich stems from "when does life begin."

now...you say "a bunch of cells" is not a human life.....I agree.

However...if that "bunch of cells" is dependant upon a human being to grow...via the umbilical chord/placenta....then maybe it is not just a bunch of cells?

Look at it this way.....what other than a human being requires human antibodies and human blood cells to survive?

So you see, it is not just the religious right that feel that way...many form a science background see a fetus as a human being...from a scientific standpoint.

Unless, of course, you can cite what other than a lviing human requires human antibodies to survive....

All I know, is that a newly conceived egg does not feel pain, therefore, without suffering, the death of that egg can not be said to be immoral. Conscious suffering is what largely defines immorality to me. It is to inflict suffering unnecessarily on a being that does not choose it or does not have the ability to defend against it (e.g., factory farmed animals... why don't we talk about their suffering? Go vegan EARTHLINGS - Make the Connection. | Nation Earth )

I do see a sufficiently formed fetus as a human. I just don't know at what point a human is a human, and hence the crux of the problem. Yet I will universally deny the theist position that life starts at conception, and based on that theism, legislate against it. That is immoral, because you now forcing people to do what they do not want to, when it is their body.

 

[koshergrl]

So you take a stance against it because Christians believe murdering innocents is wrong.

Way to showcase your bigotry there, skippy.