AZ passes law saying life beings pre-conception

[Uncensored2008]

Here I've been celebrating my birthday nine months prematurely!

If life begins at conception, does the presence of an in vitro fertilization clinic affect census numbers? Can a pregnant woman drive in the HOV lane if she's carrying twins?

Give Mississippi credit for once. They voted down the lunacy that was the 'personhood' amendment. How many times can we cite Mississippi for being smarter than any other state?

Yeah..

This what happens when people have a hate site, but no brain.

They vote for Obama, and spout the stupidest shit..

Did your hate site program you to believe that Jan Brewer invented the term and concept "Gestational age?"

Gestational age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

******* moron.

 

[Uncensored2008]

a tooth. Separate a tooth from a blood supply, it dies.

An embryo is not a human.

You truly are retarded.

Seriously.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You compared a tooth to a fetus in an effort to be right in this debate.

In all fairness, a tooth has a higher IQ than Nosmo or Jillian.

Or Nosmo and Jillian combined.. In fact, make that the tooth of a dead rat.

Leftists are ******* retards, there is simply no getting around it.

 

[Navy1960]

what would stop her?

work...

cost...

that is why in a place like North Dakota, where there is maybe one practitioner within 500 miles and that practitioner spends one day in this place and one day in that place, a 3 day waiting period is specifically intended to make the doctor's services unavailable.

it won't affect people with money at all. it never did.

Ah so then jillian if one can be creative with legislating issues such as these one one state lets say thats not so friendly, they can be friendly in the next state that is , say perhaps, Oh I don't know let's call it "future women of california project" wherein a bus stops in Phoenix everyday picks up goes to California where they pay for a taxed based service that California gets the benefits from and then are returned home? Just a thought, and for the more free enterprise types, there is always starting your own " shuttle service". I suppose my point here is not to make light of the situtation but more so to point out that while states may pass laws that restrict choice based on some moral ground, there are others that do not and noting is forever, meaning that in a state like Arizona which is changing rapidly in its demographics where one day it will be more than likely blue, even these types of laws won't last long. So I go back to my original thought on the matter , when a legislature especially in todays economy seeks to legislate what is clearly a moral issue from one point of view, they take their collective eye's off the real problems here which are numerous.

It's a one day drive to get your abortion up here.

No big smurf you see. It's called abortion tourism. The guy that really freaked me out was Tiller.

Holy toledo!!! Your Minister of Health (what do you call it down there?) was set up by Tiller.

Cripes Sebelius gave him his own crematorium (so he could do what he wanted) and allowed him to sell trinkets.

Footprints of your aborted baby late term. You really have to witness his website to believe it. Pictures with your aborted baby as well.

Freaking bus tours for abortion. That's sick.

Clearly you didn't read my postings tiny, so let me recap for you, first of all on a moral basis I've said here many times that you would be hard pressed to find many people who disagree with protecting "viable babies" and even today data suggests that at 23 weeks viablity is as high as 53%. What I have said is that passing laws that restrict choices based on a religious concept "life begins at conception" or defacto laws that seek to discourage choice based on the same principle do not belong as Laws in any shape or fashion. The reason being is because these laws take a narrow religious view of "life" based on one religion and the last I checked there is no specific mention of a type of religion in the 1st Amendment even if that religion happens to be Hindu, Wiccan, whatever it may be. My point was that when laws like these are passed they are a waste of time and states that do not have them will then see an increase from the states that do and as such the need to transport these young women there will be filled.

 

[tinydancer]

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

They don't know truth. Quite simple. Their lives are based on falsehoods. Bizarre but true.

My god, when the hate sites spew a lie, all of you ******* morons spew it.

Clearly the aggregate of the entire DNC is about 12.

******* moron.

Ah come on Jillian.

Face it. Deal with it.

 

[koshergrl]

Here I've been celebrating my birthday nine months prematurely!

If life begins at conception, does the presence of an in vitro fertilization clinic affect census numbers? Can a pregnant woman drive in the HOV lane if she's carrying twins?

Give Mississippi credit for once. They voted down the lunacy that was the 'personhood' amendment. How many times can we cite Mississippi for being smarter than any other state?

what hapopens when you separate a fetus from the palcenta?

It dies.

How can something die that was never alive to begin with?

Why does it need the palcenta to live?

Becuase it requires human blood, human hormones and himan antibodies to live.

Other than a human, what else requires human blood, human hormones, and human antibodies to live?

Nothing. Just humans.

TYherefore...according to basic science......the fetus is a live human.

I have the pro choice position becuase I see the logic and respect what the pro choicers say.

Why are those on the left unable to see the logic and respect what the right sees? Afterall, as I demonstrated in this post...there is absolute scientific logic that backs up the claim of the right.

a tooth. Separate a tooth from a blood supply, it dies.

An embryo is not a human.

Biologists disagree with you:

"
(human biology) Baby in the early developmental stage, after the zygote phase (at fertilization) to week eight from the time of fertilization (note: week eight from the time of fertilization is equivalent to 10 weeks gestational age)
"

Embryo - definition from Biology-Online.org

Or is a baby non-human as well?

 

[Nosmo King]

what hapopens when you separate a fetus from the palcenta?

It dies.

How can something die that was never alive to begin with?

Why does it need the palcenta to live?

Becuase it requires human blood, human hormones and himan antibodies to live.

Other than a human, what else requires human blood, human hormones, and human antibodies to live?

Nothing. Just humans.

TYherefore...according to basic science......the fetus is a live human.

I have the pro choice position becuase I see the logic and respect what the pro choicers say.

Why are those on the left unable to see the logic and respect what the right sees? Afterall, as I demonstrated in this post...there is absolute scientific logic that backs up the claim of the right.

a tooth. Separate a tooth from a blood supply, it dies.

An embryo is not a human.

You compared a tooth to a fetus in an effort to be right in this debate.

You are a classic example of what I was referring to. A person on the left who refuses to see the logic behind the sentiments of one that thinks differently...and therefore refuses to respect that persons sentiments.

Comparing a tooth to a fetus.

Quite arrogant of you.

"lookie me. I have a way to shoot down what he says".

Go for it. It makes you look silly...but go for it.

FYI...a tooth does not actually die. That is strictly a term to imply the tooth is worthless.

Next time try to enegage in a mature "big boy" debate.

No I answered the questions you posed.

what hapopens (sic) when you separate a fetus from the palcenta? What happens when you separate a tooth from the mouth? It dies. Given proper care, a tooth will live in a jaw for a human lifetime.

Other than a human, what else requires human blood, human hormones, and human antibodies to live? Teeth.

An autonomous blood supply, the ability to survive outside the protection of the womb. these are things that separate the fetus from the human.

I support a woman's right to choose her reproductive decisions. I believe that abortion should be safe but rare.

 

[koshergrl]

Logical fallacy. A tooth isn't a baby, nor is it an embryo, nor is it a zygote. A tooth isn't a human at any stage of its development. A tooth is always a tooth.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ah come on Jillian.

Face it. Deal with it.

Jillian has never struck me as particularly bright, but this level of retardation is beyond the pale...

 

[tinydancer]

Ah so then jillian if one can be creative with legislating issues such as these one one state lets say thats not so friendly, they can be friendly in the next state that is , say perhaps, Oh I don't know let's call it "future women of california project" wherein a bus stops in Phoenix everyday picks up goes to California where they pay for a taxed based service that California gets the benefits from and then are returned home? Just a thought, and for the more free enterprise types, there is always starting your own " shuttle service". I suppose my point here is not to make light of the situtation but more so to point out that while states may pass laws that restrict choice based on some moral ground, there are others that do not and noting is forever, meaning that in a state like Arizona which is changing rapidly in its demographics where one day it will be more than likely blue, even these types of laws won't last long. So I go back to my original thought on the matter , when a legislature especially in todays economy seeks to legislate what is clearly a moral issue from one point of view, they take their collective eye's off the real problems here which are numerous.

It's a one day drive to get your abortion up here.

No big smurf you see. It's called abortion tourism. The guy that really freaked me out was Tiller.

Holy toledo!!! Your Minister of Health (what do you call it down there?) was set up by Tiller.

Cripes Sebelius gave him his own crematorium (so he could do what he wanted) and allowed him to sell trinkets.

Footprints of your aborted baby late term. You really have to witness his website to believe it. Pictures with your aborted baby as well.

Freaking bus tours for abortion. That's sick.

Clearly you didn't read my postings tiny, so let me recap for you, first of all on a moral basis I've said here many times that you would be hard pressed to find many people who disagree with protecting "viable babies" and even today data suggests that at 23 weeks viablity is as high as 53%. What I have said is that passing laws that restrict choices based on a religious concept "life begins at conception" or defacto laws that seek to discourage choice based on the same principle do not belong as Laws in any shape or fashion. The reason being is because these laws take a narrow religious view of "life" based on one religion and the last I checked there is no specific mention of a type of religion in the 1st Amendment even if that religion happens to be Hindu, Wiccan, whatever it may be. My point was that when laws like these are passed they are a waste of time and states that do not have them will then see an increase from the states that do and as such the need to transport these young women there will be filled.

Whoa geeze. I was responding to Jillian's post. Apologies at how this got on the same page.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Biologists disagree with you:

"
(human biology) Baby in the early developmental stage, after the zygote phase (at fertilization) to week eight from the time of fertilization (note: week eight from the time of fertilization is equivalent to 10 weeks gestational age)
"

Embryo - definition from Biology-Online.org

Or is a baby non-human as well?

Those not severely retarded laugh at Nosmo and Jillian.

These two drooling morons think Jan Brewer invented and defined "gestational age."

KOS dun said it, so Jillian and Nosmo believe it....

******* retards, just astounding how stupid they are.

 

[koshergrl]

Ah so then jillian if one can be creative with legislating issues such as these one one state lets say thats not so friendly, they can be friendly in the next state that is , say perhaps, Oh I don't know let's call it "future women of california project" wherein a bus stops in Phoenix everyday picks up goes to California where they pay for a taxed based service that California gets the benefits from and then are returned home? Just a thought, and for the more free enterprise types, there is always starting your own " shuttle service". I suppose my point here is not to make light of the situtation but more so to point out that while states may pass laws that restrict choice based on some moral ground, there are others that do not and noting is forever, meaning that in a state like Arizona which is changing rapidly in its demographics where one day it will be more than likely blue, even these types of laws won't last long. So I go back to my original thought on the matter , when a legislature especially in todays economy seeks to legislate what is clearly a moral issue from one point of view, they take their collective eye's off the real problems here which are numerous.

It's a one day drive to get your abortion up here.

No big smurf you see. It's called abortion tourism. The guy that really freaked me out was Tiller.

Holy toledo!!! Your Minister of Health (what do you call it down there?) was set up by Tiller.

Cripes Sebelius gave him his own crematorium (so he could do what he wanted) and allowed him to sell trinkets.

Footprints of your aborted baby late term. You really have to witness his website to believe it. Pictures with your aborted baby as well.

Freaking bus tours for abortion. That's sick.

Clearly you didn't read my postings tiny, so let me recap for you, first of all on a moral basis I've said here many times that you would be hard pressed to find many people who disagree with protecting "viable babies" and even today data suggests that at 23 weeks viablity is as high as 53%. What I have said is that passing laws that restrict choices based on a religious concept "life begins at conception" or defacto laws that seek to discourage choice based on the same principle do not belong as Laws in any shape or fashion. The reason being is because these laws take a narrow religious view of "life" based on one religion and the last I checked there is no specific mention of a type of religion in the 1st Amendment even if that religion happens to be Hindu, Wiccan, whatever it may be. My point was that when laws like these are passed they are a waste of time and states that do not have them will then see an increase from the states that do and as such the need to transport these young women there will be filled.

 

[tinydancer]

Ah come on Jillian.

Face it. Deal with it.

Jillian has never struck me as particularly bright, but this level of retardation is beyond the pale...

What kills me is their tactic of "it's not a baby". My daughter in my belly rocked. Hell's bells I could see my son stretching out his legs in my abdomen. AND my last daughter kicked ass in delivery.

Are these people this stupid?

 

[Uncensored2008]

What kills me is their tactic of "it's not a baby". My daughter in my belly rocked. Hell's bells I could see my son stretching out his legs in my abdomen. AND my last daughter kicked ass in delivery.

Are these people this stupid?

Yes, they are that stupid.

Neither Jillian nor Nosmo could pass a second grade science class.

 

[koshergrl]

Actually, they aren't stupid. They're dishonest. They will not admit they think some babies, and therefore some people, are without value. Further, they won't admit that they think it's okay to destroy people they view as *without value*. So they go to great lengths to pretend their desire to protect the practice of infanticide is all about women's rights, science, whatever, and they LIE about both in order to make it fit.

At the end of the day, they don't think these babies should be born, because they think they don't have value. They think they have the right to dictate who has value and who doesn't, and therefore they must protect the *right* of others to do the same.

 

[Jarhead]

a tooth. Separate a tooth from a blood supply, it dies.

An embryo is not a human.

You compared a tooth to a fetus in an effort to be right in this debate.

You are a classic example of what I was referring to. A person on the left who refuses to see the logic behind the sentiments of one that thinks differently...and therefore refuses to respect that persons sentiments.

Comparing a tooth to a fetus.

Quite arrogant of you.

"lookie me. I have a way to shoot down what he says".

Go for it. It makes you look silly...but go for it.

FYI...a tooth does not actually die. That is strictly a term to imply the tooth is worthless.

Next time try to enegage in a mature "big boy" debate.

No I answered the questions you posed.

what hapopens (sic) when you separate a fetus from the palcenta? What happens when you separate a tooth from the mouth? It dies. Given proper care, a tooth will live in a jaw for a human lifetime.

Other than a human, what else requires human blood, human hormones, and human antibodies to live? Teeth.

An autonomous blood supply, the ability to survive outside the protection of the womb. these are things that separate the fetus from the human.

I support a woman's right to choose her reproductive decisions. I believe that abortion should be safe but rare.

perhaps I inadvertantly sensed a bit more sarcasm than you intended in your original post. My bad.
I see your point.....and to be frank, it is somewhat similar to the way I see it and why I am tolerant of those that support abortions. I DO support right to choose, but my overall view on abortion is I will never vote against it, but I still see abortion as taking the right of life from the unborn child.

 

[Dick Tuck]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8]Every Sperm is Sacred {Monty Python's Meaning of Life} - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Navy1960]

It's a one day drive to get your abortion up here.

No big smurf you see. It's called abortion tourism. The guy that really freaked me out was Tiller.

Holy toledo!!! Your Minister of Health (what do you call it down there?) was set up by Tiller.

Cripes Sebelius gave him his own crematorium (so he could do what he wanted) and allowed him to sell trinkets.

Footprints of your aborted baby late term. You really have to witness his website to believe it. Pictures with your aborted baby as well.

Freaking bus tours for abortion. That's sick.

Clearly you didn't read my postings tiny, so let me recap for you, first of all on a moral basis I've said here many times that you would be hard pressed to find many people who disagree with protecting "viable babies" and even today data suggests that at 23 weeks viablity is as high as 53%. What I have said is that passing laws that restrict choices based on a religious concept "life begins at conception" or defacto laws that seek to discourage choice based on the same principle do not belong as Laws in any shape or fashion. The reason being is because these laws take a narrow religious view of "life" based on one religion and the last I checked there is no specific mention of a type of religion in the 1st Amendment even if that religion happens to be Hindu, Wiccan, whatever it may be. My point was that when laws like these are passed they are a waste of time and states that do not have them will then see an increase from the states that do and as such the need to transport these young women there will be filled.

Obviously thats a bit much so let me help you,

Jewish
The Talmud states in part that if the “greater part was already born, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person’s life for that of another.” Thus the act of birth changes the status of the fetus from a nonperson to a person (nefesh). Killing the newborn after this point is infanticide...

Buddhist belief that "life is a continuum with no discernible starting point".[

Some Hindu theologians and Brahma Kumaris believe personhood begins at three months and develops through to five months of gestation, possibly implying permitting abortion up to the third month and considering any abortion past the third month to be destruction of the soul's current incarnate body.

Although there are different opinions among Islamic scholars about when life begins and when abortion is permissible, most agree that the termination of a pregnancy after 120 days – the point at which, in Islam, a fetus is thought to become a living soul – is not permissible.

Many Christians believe that abortion is wrong, because of their belief that the act of abortion is murdering an unborn baby. While people argue the point of conception and the viability of a fetus, there is no doubt that the Bible does condemn the taking of another person’s life. Thus, the question of whether or not abortion is wrong depends on whether or not you believe aborting a fetus is murder.

Genesis 9:5 – “Murder is forbidden.”


21 12. 13. "Unborn child" means the offspring of human beings from
22 conception until birth. < concept taken from One Religion


http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/hb2036s.pdf

James Madison on the 1st Amendment

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

The fact is the law here in Arizona is based on a single religions concept of when life begins and in that seeks to compel others who do not believe in that concept to follow that which runs contrary to the our Constitution. One more thing comes to mind here as well , this legislation will find itself in a courtroom much the same way legislation like this always does, this costing the state more money in terms of its economic health which it can little afford. No, this is a moral issue that is better left to the hearts and minds of people, and their Doctors and not being legislated at the behest of the Center for Arizona Policy which clearly is religious and faith based group at the expense of other relgious faiths.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, and your convoluted justification for allowing people to individually decide if and when it's okay to kill people under their care and protection remains insane.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually, they aren't stupid. They're dishonest.

They might be dishonest, but Jillian is most certainly stupid.

They will not admit they think some babies, and therefore some people, are without value.

You imbue them with the attribute of thought, which I honestly see no evidence of. Jillian repeats whatever the hate sites say. That isn't thought, that's just echoing.

Further, they won't admit that they think it's okay to destroy people they view as *without value*. So they go to great lengths to pretend their desire to protect the practice of infanticide is all about women's rights, science, whatever, and they LIE about both in order to make it fit.

At the end of the day, they don't think these babies should be born, because they think they don't have value. They think they have the right to dictate who has value and who doesn't, and therefore they must protect the *right* of others to do the same.

Again, I see no evidence that either Nosmo or Jillian have even rudimentary reasoning abilities. I can teach my cockatiel to repeat phrases. This is all Jillian, et al, are doing.