Personhood Loses For 3rd Time

[Dana7360]

Colorado rejected the conservative personhood bill again for the 3 time today.

When will those who want to take reproductive rights from women learn that they can't win when you face the voters?

You're in the minority in this nation. Stop trying to make women second class citizens by taking their reproductive rights from them.

If you believe a fertilized egg is a human fine. Stop trying to force it on everyone else.

If you want to believe that contraception is abortion fine. Stop trying to force that lie on everyone else.

Women will always turn out and vote to keep their rights. You will always lose.

 

[Dot Com]

good on them

 

[The Rabbi]

It was an idiotic proposal that would have been ruled unconstitutional the instant it passed. Even people opposed to aborition probably voted against it.
The fight to save unborn children will go on. Eventually we will stop this mass murder.

 

[Esmeralda]

Some people want to take us back to the Dark Ages.

 

[Clementine]

Would Dems agree to a personhood title when women want their babies and lose them because of some criminal or drunk driver? Shouldn't that be considered quite a loss for them instead of a nothing? Some women have lost their babies in accidents or due to attacks when they were near delivery time. Are you willing to dismiss that as the same as a voluntary abortion?

It might be a fine line, but for those who believe that the baby they are carrying is a life worth something, it's a different matter. If a murderer kills a pregnant woman, I think it should be considered a double homicide.

I suppose only the mother can say whether a life is worth anything or not. All depends on how wanted it is.

 

[The Rabbi]

Some people want to take us back to the Dark Ages.

You mean the times when people left their infants out on a hill side for the wolves because they were the wrong sex, or disabled? Yes, I agree. Those people would be the libs.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Would Dems agree to a personhood title when women want their babies and lose them because of some criminal or drunk driver? Shouldn't that be considered quite a loss for them instead of a nothing? Some women have lost their babies in accidents or due to attacks when they were near delivery time. Are you willing to dismiss that as the same as a voluntary abortion?

It might be a fine line, but for those who believe that the baby they are carrying is a life worth something, it's a different matter. If a murderer kills a pregnant woman, I think it should be considered a double homicide.

I suppose only the mother can say whether a life is worth anything or not. All depends on how wanted it is.

Fetuses are not babies.

And, its the woman's business. No one elses.

MYOB

 

[The Rabbi]

Would Dems agree to a personhood title when women want their babies and lose them because of some criminal or drunk driver? Shouldn't that be considered quite a loss for them instead of a nothing? Some women have lost their babies in accidents or due to attacks when they were near delivery time. Are you willing to dismiss that as the same as a voluntary abortion?

It might be a fine line, but for those who believe that the baby they are carrying is a life worth something, it's a different matter. If a murderer kills a pregnant woman, I think it should be considered a double homicide.

I suppose only the mother can say whether a life is worth anything or not. All depends on how wanted it is.

Fetuses are not babies.

And, its the woman's business. No one elses.

MYOB

Of course they are. They do not share the same DNA as the mother. Therefore they are not part of her. Quit killing kids.

 

[hazlnut]

Would Dems agree to a personhood title when women want their babies and lose them because of some criminal or drunk driver? Shouldn't that be considered quite a loss for them instead of a nothing? Some women have lost their babies in accidents or due to attacks when they were near delivery time. Are you willing to dismiss that as the same as a voluntary abortion?

It might be a fine line, but for those who believe that the baby they are carrying is a life worth something, it's a different matter. If a murderer kills a pregnant woman, I think it should be considered a double homicide.

I suppose only the mother can say whether a life is worth anything or not. All depends on how wanted it is.

Fetuses are not babies.

And, its the woman's business. No one elses.

MYOB

Of course they are. They do not share the same DNA as the mother. Therefore they are not part of her. Quit killing kids.

CLICK HERE.

 

[Mr. H.]

Colorado rejected the conservative personhood bill again for the 3 time today.

When will those who want to take reproductive rights from women learn that they can't win when you face the voters?

You're in the minority in this nation. Stop trying to make women second class citizens by taking their reproductive rights from them.

If you believe a fertilized egg is a human fine. Stop trying to force it on everyone else.

If you want to believe that contraception is abortion fine. Stop trying to force that lie on everyone else.

Women will always turn out and vote to keep their rights. You will always lose.

Let's imagine for a moment here...

Describe your unborn child's citizenry.

Now, describe your unborn child's abortion.

A first-person narrative would be appreciated.

Go ahead and pretend. Run with it.

Just for fun.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...
When will those who want to take reproductive rights from women learn that they can't win when you face the voters?

Reproductive rights?

You're speaking of the RIGHT of a woman to choose with whom, when and where she engages in coitus? Which is sustained by the responsibility to choose wisely, and only where she is prepared to bear the consequences relevant to such?

LOL! Who's trying to take THAT valid right away?

In 54 years, I've never heard a single person so much as SUGGEST a desire to do so.

Of course, in reality, the advocacy in the OP is not for a valid right, it is a subjective perversion of the concept 'right'; an irrational interpretation which rest entirely upon the subjective need of those claiming the right to murder their own pre-born child, on the grounds that they'd be inconvenienced if they were to bear their inalienable responsibilities which otherwise require them to raise that child.

They're claiming the right to murder... . Not only does such a right not exist, there is no POTENTIAL for a right TO exist.

 

[Esmeralda]

Would Dems agree to a personhood title when women want their babies and lose them because of some criminal or drunk driver? Shouldn't that be considered quite a loss for them instead of a nothing? Some women have lost their babies in accidents or due to attacks when they were near delivery time. Are you willing to dismiss that as the same as a voluntary abortion?

It might be a fine line, but for those who believe that the baby they are carrying is a life worth something, it's a different matter. If a murderer kills a pregnant woman, I think it should be considered a double homicide.

I suppose only the mother can say whether a life is worth anything or not. All depends on how wanted it is.

Abortion does not occur 'near delivery time.' Why don't you just take care of your own body and let others take care of theirs? "Eighty-nine (89) percent of abortions occur at 12 weeks (3 months)" That's six months before 'near delivery time.'

 

[The Rabbi]

Would Dems agree to a personhood title when women want their babies and lose them because of some criminal or drunk driver? Shouldn't that be considered quite a loss for them instead of a nothing? Some women have lost their babies in accidents or due to attacks when they were near delivery time. Are you willing to dismiss that as the same as a voluntary abortion?

It might be a fine line, but for those who believe that the baby they are carrying is a life worth something, it's a different matter. If a murderer kills a pregnant woman, I think it should be considered a double homicide.

I suppose only the mother can say whether a life is worth anything or not. All depends on how wanted it is.

Abortion does not occur 'near delivery time.' Why don't you just take care of your own body and let others take care of theirs? "Eighty-nine (89) percent of abortions occur at 12 weeks (3 months)" That's six months before 'near delivery time.'

We're taking care of those too small to take care of themselves.

 

[Roadrunner]

...
When will those who want to take reproductive rights from women learn that they can't win when you face the voters?

Reproductive rights?

You're speaking of the RIGHT of a woman to choose with whom, when and where she engages in coitus? Which is sustained by the responsibility to choose wisely, and only where she is prepared to bear the consequences relevant to such?

LOL! Who's trying to take THAT valid right away?

In 54 years, I've never heard a single person so much as SUGGEST a desire to do so.

Of course, in reality, the advocacy in the OP is not for a valid right, it is a subjective perversion of the concept 'right'; an irrational interpretation which rest entirely upon the subjective need of those claiming the right to murder their own pre-born child, on the grounds that they'd be inconvenienced if they were to bear their inalienable responsibilities which otherwise require them to raise that child.

They're claiming the right to murder... . Not only does such a right not exist, there is no POTENTIAL for a right TO exist.

To a Dem, there is no right to life until convicted of a heinous capital crime.

 

[Roadrunner]

Would Dems agree to a personhood title when women want their babies and lose them because of some criminal or drunk driver? Shouldn't that be considered quite a loss for them instead of a nothing? Some women have lost their babies in accidents or due to attacks when they were near delivery time. Are you willing to dismiss that as the same as a voluntary abortion?

It might be a fine line, but for those who believe that the baby they are carrying is a life worth something, it's a different matter. If a murderer kills a pregnant woman, I think it should be considered a double homicide.

I suppose only the mother can say whether a life is worth anything or not. All depends on how wanted it is.

Abortion does not occur 'near delivery time.' Why don't you just take care of your own body and let others take care of theirs? "Eighty-nine (89) percent of abortions occur at 12 weeks (3 months)" That's six months before 'near delivery time.'

It still takes a life.

Millions of women who have had abortions are batshit crazy and cannot sleep at night for the wailing souls of their aborted children.

 

[Dana7360]

The difference between you conservatives who want to take women's rights from them and the rest of us, is that the rest of us aren't telling you that you can't believe what you believe.

Why can't you be happy to be free to live your life as you choose? Why do you need to take that same freedom from everyone else and force them to live the way you want them to live?

I've come to believe that you conservatives don't like freedom at all. You don't like individual liberty either.

You all can call a fertilized egg life all you want but just saying it won't make it true.

 

[Esmeralda]

Abortion does not occur 'near delivery time.' Why don't you just take care of your own body and let others take care of theirs? "Eighty-nine (89) percent of abortions occur at 12 weeks (3 months)" That's six months before 'near delivery time.'

The other 11% occur before 12 weeks.

WhereAreMy Keys:

Reproductive rights?

You're speaking of the RIGHT of a woman to choose with whom, when and where she engages in coitus? Which is sustained by the responsibility to choose wisely, and only where she is prepared to bear the consequences relevant to such?

LOL! Who's trying to take THAT valid right away?

In 54 years, I've never heard a single person so much as SUGGEST a desire to do so.

Of course,

They're claiming the right to murder... . Not only does such a right not exist, there is no POTENTIAL for a right TO exist

All around the world, abortion is accepted as a legal right. Only in the States is abortion considered so debatable. Only in a few very religious nations, which are or nearly are theocracies, is abortion illegal. Your religious feelings have no bearing in the US, which is not a theocracy. You don't have the right to force women to live by your religious beliefs. No one is forcing you to get an abortion: worry about yourself and leave others with their freedoms.

Fifty-one percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method in the month they got pregnant, most commonly condoms (27%) or a hormonal method (17%).[7]

Induced Abortion in the United States

You want the woman to take responsibility for a pregnancy by carrying the child to term and either putting it up for adoption or raising it. What about the father? What is his responsibility? In most cases, nothing happens to him, though he is ethically just as responsible. You want women who are single and cannot afford to raise a child to raise it, but people who are anti-abortion are also against spending any tax dollars on raising these children. It's lose, lose, lose for the woman who unintentionally gets pregnant, and win, win, win for the religious fascists and the fathers.

And, BTW, THIS is the post that is emotional and irrational:

in reality, the advocacy in the OP is not for a valid right, it is a subjective perversion of the concept 'right'; an irrational interpretation which rest entirely upon the subjective need of those claiming the right to murder their own pre-born child, on the grounds that they'd be inconvenienced if they were to bear their inalienable responsibilities which otherwise require them to raise that child.

Abortion is NOT murder.

Abortion is NOT a perversion.

Abortion is NOT irrational.

The fetus is NOT a pre-born child. It is a fetus.

And raising an unwanted child that you cannot support is not an 'inconvenience.' You try it and see how 'inconvenient' it is: it is a hardship, undeserved, for 18+ years of your life. Using terms like murder, perversion, irrational, and inconvenient is a rhetorical device to suggest that you are in the right and women who seek abortion are not only in the wrong, but they are perverted, irrational murderers.
Induced Abortion in the United States

 

[Clementine]

Would Dems agree to a personhood title when women want their babies and lose them because of some criminal or drunk driver? Shouldn't that be considered quite a loss for them instead of a nothing? Some women have lost their babies in accidents or due to attacks when they were near delivery time. Are you willing to dismiss that as the same as a voluntary abortion?

It might be a fine line, but for those who believe that the baby they are carrying is a life worth something, it's a different matter. If a murderer kills a pregnant woman, I think it should be considered a double homicide.

I suppose only the mother can say whether a life is worth anything or not. All depends on how wanted it is.

Abortion does not occur 'near delivery time.' Why don't you just take care of your own body and let others take care of theirs? "Eighty-nine (89) percent of abortions occur at 12 weeks (3 months)" That's six months before 'near delivery time.'

You didn't address anything I said. I was talking about wanted babies being killed near delivery time and the person responsible not being held liable. This has happened when women have been in accidents or when they were assaulted. Can you understand the difference between a woman losing a wanted baby because she was a victim or those making a choice to kill it? I have been to a funeral of a couple who were killed in an accident by a drunk driver. The woman was 8 months pregnant. It was sad to see her holding the baby in her arms in the casket, yet there were only two manslaughter charges for the man who ran into them.

There are late term abortions and that is wrong. If the true reason is that the mothers life is in danger, then it makes no sense because the woman has to start with a regular delivery and the doctor stops halfway through to kill the baby. It puts the woman's life at more risk because it takes longer. And there are those who decide late in the game that they don't want the baby. Late term abortions for convenience are just plain wrong no matter how you look at it.

I doubt if the law will ever change on abortions and you need to accept that some will always find it incredibly disturbing and wrong. And not all women believe that abortion is the most important issue. Democrats act like it's the only thing that defines us women and that is really insulting.

 

[Esmeralda]

Colorado rejected the conservative personhood bill again for the 3 time today.

When will those who want to take reproductive rights from women learn that they can't win when you face the voters?

You're in the minority in this nation. Stop trying to make women second class citizens by taking their reproductive rights from them.

If you believe a fertilized egg is a human fine. Stop trying to force it on everyone else.

If you want to believe that contraception is abortion fine. Stop trying to force that lie on everyone else.

Women will always turn out and vote to keep their rights. You will always lose.

Let's imagine for a moment here...

Describe your unborn child's citizenry.

Now, describe your unborn child's abortion.

A first-person narrative would be appreciated.

Go ahead and pretend. Run with it.

Just for fun.

If you want to keep your pregnancy and carry the child to term, then raise it for 18+ years, you are free to do so. I really have little patience for men who insert themselves into this debate when they are not the ones who get pregnant, have to carry a child to term, then raise it for 18+ years. You go through what a woman goes through, then we'll talk.

No one is stopping you from living your life according to your religious beliefs, just don't impose them on others. And, BTW, how many guns do you own, Mr. Right to Life, who considers all those children gunned down at school nowadays as simply collateral damage?

 

[Esmeralda]

Would Dems agree to a personhood title when women want their babies and lose them because of some criminal or drunk driver? Shouldn't that be considered quite a loss for them instead of a nothing? Some women have lost their babies in accidents or due to attacks when they were near delivery time. Are you willing to dismiss that as the same as a voluntary abortion?

It might be a fine line, but for those who believe that the baby they are carrying is a life worth something, it's a different matter. If a murderer kills a pregnant woman, I think it should be considered a double homicide.

I suppose only the mother can say whether a life is worth anything or not. All depends on how wanted it is.

Abortion does not occur 'near delivery time.' Why don't you just take care of your own body and let others take care of theirs? "Eighty-nine (89) percent of abortions occur at 12 weeks (3 months)" That's six months before 'near delivery time.'

You didn't address anything I said. I was talking about wanted babies being killed near delivery time and the person responsible not being held liable. This has happened when women have been in accidents or when they were assaulted. Can you understand the difference between a woman losing a wanted baby because she was a victim or those making a choice to kill it? I have been to a funeral of a couple who were killed in an accident by a drunk driver. The woman was 8 months pregnant. It was sad to see her holding the baby in her arms in the casket, yet there were only two manslaughter charges for the man who ran into them.

There are late term abortions and that is wrong. If the true reason is that the mothers life is in danger, then it makes no sense because the woman has to start with a regular delivery and the doctor stops halfway through to kill the baby. It puts the woman's life at more risk because it takes longer. And there are those who decide late in the game that they don't want the baby. Late term abortions for convenience are just plain wrong no matter how you look at it.

I doubt if the law will ever change on abortions and you need to accept that some will always find it incredibly disturbing and wrong. And not all women believe that abortion is the most important issue. Democrats act like it's the only thing that defines us women and that is really insulting.

Your points about a wanted child killed in a accident or attack are irrelevant to this discussion.

Late term abortions are only done when the mother's life is at risk or the child is morbidly deformed and life for it would be nothing more than pain and misery. Late term abortions have absolutely nothing to do with convenience: educate yourself.

Those who are against abortion are so for their personal religious beliefs. That has nothing to do with the rest of us. US=religious freedom. You are free to believe what you want and so is everyone else.