AZ passes law saying life beings pre-conception

[Navy1960]

I've said it before and will say it here again, the wording in Arizona leigislation takes a phrase from what just one or two religions belief structure. If for example a person happens to believe otherwise then on it's face any bill that supports this is a violation of the 1st Amendment in that seeks to set up religious beliefs by Govt. and then legislate from that. Regardless of your feelings on the issue, if the purpose of the Arizona Law was to limit abortions after 20 weeks then they simply would have affirmed the Casey decision and said as much. I am frankly always amazed that people who claim to love the Constitution, would be so quick to take it's rights from their fellow citizens based on their beliefs. The fact is the Constitution is there for everyone and what makes it great it allows for us to disagree and yet live Free. That is why laws such as these have no place in Arizona much less the United States.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Or on a different but similar note, as inthemiddle so brilliantly put it; "You're damn right it's too invasive. When the government can legislatively insert something into your vagina, you're god damned right it's too invasive. What you insert into your own vagina is your own decision and business. But when government does it, it's being too god damned invasive."

What exactly does the Arizona law insert in your vagina?

Oh, that's right, you're a demagogue. Facts have no bearing on the bullshit you post.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I've said it before and will say it here again, the wording in Arizona leigislation takes a phrase from what just one or two religions belief structure. If for example a person happens to believe otherwise then on it's face any bill that supports this is a violation of the 1st Amendment in that seeks to set up religious beliefs by Govt. and then legislate from that. Regardless of your feelings on the issue, if the purpose of the Arizona Law was to limit abortions after 20 weeks then they simply would have affirmed the Casey decision and said as much. I am frankly always amazed that people who claim to love the Constitution, would be so quick to take it's rights from their fellow citizens based on their beliefs. The fact is the Constitution is there for everyone and what makes it great it allows for us to disagree and yet live Free. That is why laws such as these have no place in Arizona much less the United States.

Utter bullshit.

It's clear that you have not read the law or a valid synopsis of same. You state your anti-religion bigotry, not a factual critique of the law.

Anything which might harm the profits of the multi-billion dollar abortion industry faux outrages, faux outrages I tells ya, the party faithful.

 

[Uncensored2008]

True.

Mindless ******* demagogue.

 

[BDBoop]

Water retaining seacow!

I just want to feel like I belong.

 

[jillian]

I've said it before and will say it here again, the wording in Arizona leigislation takes a phrase from what just one or two religions belief structure. If for example a person happens to believe otherwise then on it's face any bill that supports this is a violation of the 1st Amendment in that seeks to set up religious beliefs by Govt. and then legislate from that. Regardless of your feelings on the issue, if the purpose of the Arizona Law was to limit abortions after 20 weeks then they simply would have affirmed the Casey decision and said as much. I am frankly always amazed that people who claim to love the Constitution, would be so quick to take it's rights from their fellow citizens based on their beliefs. The fact is the Constitution is there for everyone and what makes it great it allows for us to disagree and yet live Free. That is why laws such as these have no place in Arizona much less the United States.

Utter bullshit.

It's clear that you have not read the law or a valid synopsis of same. You state your anti-religion bigotry, not a factual critique of the law.

Anything which might harm the profits of the multi-billion dollar abortion industry faux outrages, faux outrages I tells ya, the party faithful.

it's always funny watching one of the stupidest and least respected members of the forum try to insult one of the smartest and most respected members of the forum.

 

[Ravi]

Water retaining seacow!

I just want to feel like I belong.

Why do you hate manatees?

 

[BDBoop]

Water retaining seacow!

I just want to feel like I belong.

Why do you hate manatees?

Oh, thanks for dredging up memories best left forgotten!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Navy1960]

I've said it before and will say it here again, the wording in Arizona leigislation takes a phrase from what just one or two religions belief structure. If for example a person happens to believe otherwise then on it's face any bill that supports this is a violation of the 1st Amendment in that seeks to set up religious beliefs by Govt. and then legislate from that. Regardless of your feelings on the issue, if the purpose of the Arizona Law was to limit abortions after 20 weeks then they simply would have affirmed the Casey decision and said as much. I am frankly always amazed that people who claim to love the Constitution, would be so quick to take it's rights from their fellow citizens based on their beliefs. The fact is the Constitution is there for everyone and what makes it great it allows for us to disagree and yet live Free. That is why laws such as these have no place in Arizona much less the United States.

Utter bullshit.

It's clear that you have not read the law or a valid synopsis of same. You state your anti-religion bigotry, not a factual critique of the law.

Anything which might harm the profits of the multi-billion dollar abortion industry faux outrages, faux outrages I tells ya, the party faithful.

Actually I've had the chance to read every sentence of the House version and the Senate Version and they both refelct the wishes of the Center for Arizona Policy a Christian faith based group supported by one of the bills principle sponsors Rep. Kimberly Yee.

Life – Center for Arizona Policy is dedicated to the protection of human life from the time of conception to the end of natural life. We promote public policy to protect the unborn child and their mothers. In further support of life, we oppose euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, human cloning, and embryonic stem cell research.
About Us | Center for Arizona Policy

Now in the text of the bill you have this.

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

Now as only a few religions in the United States recognize this as being a true statement mainly Islam and Christianity, and that does not square with the beliefs of some others such as the Jewish faith...

In Jewish law, life begins at birth, that is, at the time when all of the child's head has emerged from the mother's body, or when the child is more than halfway out if the head does not come out first. The consequences of this are discussed in more detail in the section on Abortion.

Birth and the First Month of Life / Torah 101 / Mechon Mamre


and if you look at the Buddhist faith it...

Buddhism does consider abortion to be the taking of a human life. At the same time, Buddhists generally are reluctant to intervene in a woman's personal decision to terminate a pregnancy. Buddhism may discourage abortion, but it also discourages imposing rigid moral absolutes.

and Islam...

Muslim views on abortion are shaped by the Quran and Hadith as well as by the opinions of legal and religious scholars and commentators. In Islam, the fetus is believed to become a living soul after four months of gestation...

That is just a few of the main stream religions in the United States views on the subject, now as we have this statement in the Consititution.

1st Amendment...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Establisment Clause :

"[t]he First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another."

Frankly I find it somewhat interesting that some would shout to anyone who would listen that the Healthcare Act is taking away peoples Freedom of Religion as given in the 1st Amendment but as so willing to step on those same rights for others when it comes to another subject they happen to believe in. When you build a Law like HB2036 from the outset that does not take into consideration all the views of your citizens and more so a narrow view that is not held by others then you seek to take away rights from those same people. Further as I have said many times in " Planned Parenthood v. Casey" Justice O'Conner reaffirmed Roe and further held that states can prevent abortions on viable pregnancies. Had the state of Arizona simply followed the path laid down in the Casey decision rather than seek to deny the rights of all women who do not hold to a particular religious view, then that law would have met with litte issue with me. No matter, as I have said many times, this nation is a nation of people that hold many different views on subjects of which ALL of them need to be respected and when we as a nation seek to legislate based on a singular view as in this case then we deny hard won rights to others and it really is that simple. I might add this too, those same people who wrote this bill and are so pro-life and concerned with womens issues had no problem passing bills that allow preditory collection companies to thrive here as well as, passing bills that enforce Arizona's death penalty. So perhaps it's best to let these legislators concentrate on whats really wrong here in Arizona, and that is the economy, and leave the moral issues to the hearts and minds of it's citizen who are best able to deal with them.

 

[Liability]

Or on a different but similar note, as inthemiddle so brilliantly put it; "You're damn right it's too invasive. When the government can legislatively insert something into your vagina, you're god damned right it's too invasive. What you insert into your own vagina is your own decision and business. But when government does it, it's being too god damned invasive."

Yeah. But is it overly invasive?

 

[Clementine]

I've said it before and will say it here again, the wording in Arizona leigislation takes a phrase from what just one or two religions belief structure. If for example a person happens to believe otherwise then on it's face any bill that supports this is a violation of the 1st Amendment in that seeks to set up religious beliefs by Govt. and then legislate from that. Regardless of your feelings on the issue, if the purpose of the Arizona Law was to limit abortions after 20 weeks then they simply would have affirmed the Casey decision and said as much. I am frankly always amazed that people who claim to love the Constitution, would be so quick to take it's rights from their fellow citizens based on their beliefs. The fact is the Constitution is there for everyone and what makes it great it allows for us to disagree and yet live Free. That is why laws such as these have no place in Arizona much less the United States.

Utter bullshit.

It's clear that you have not read the law or a valid synopsis of same. You state your anti-religion bigotry, not a factual critique of the law.

Anything which might harm the profits of the multi-billion dollar abortion industry faux outrages, faux outrages I tells ya, the party faithful.

Actually I've had the chance to read every sentence of the House version and the Senate Version and they both refelct the wishes of the Center for Arizona Policy a Christian faith based group supported by one of the bills principle sponsors Rep. Kimberly Yee.

Life – Center for Arizona Policy is dedicated to the protection of human life from the time of conception to the end of natural life. We promote public policy to protect the unborn child and their mothers. In further support of life, we oppose euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, human cloning, and embryonic stem cell research.
About Us | Center for Arizona Policy

Now in the text of the bill you have this.

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

Now as only a few religions in the United States recognize this as being a true statement mainly Islam and Christianity, and that does not square with the beliefs of some others such as the Jewish faith...

In Jewish law, life begins at birth, that is, at the time when all of the child's head has emerged from the mother's body, or when the child is more than halfway out if the head does not come out first. The consequences of this are discussed in more detail in the section on Abortion.

Birth and the First Month of Life / Torah 101 / Mechon Mamre


and if you look at the Buddhist faith it...

Buddhism does consider abortion to be the taking of a human life. At the same time, Buddhists generally are reluctant to intervene in a woman's personal decision to terminate a pregnancy. Buddhism may discourage abortion, but it also discourages imposing rigid moral absolutes.

and Islam...

Muslim views on abortion are shaped by the Quran and Hadith as well as by the opinions of legal and religious scholars and commentators. In Islam, the fetus is believed to become a living soul after four months of gestation...

That is just a few of the main stream religions in the United States views on the subject, now as we have this statement in the Consititution.

1st Amendment...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Establisment Clause :

"[t]he First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another."

Frankly I find it somewhat interesting that some would shout to anyone who would listen that the Healthcare Act is taking away peoples Freedom of Religion as given in the 1st Amendment but as so willing to step on those same rights for others when it comes to another subject they happen to believe in. When you build a Law like HB2036 from the outset that does not take into consideration all the views of your citizens and more so a narrow view that is not held by others then you seek to take away rights from those same people. Further as I have said many times in " Planned Parenthood v. Casey" Justice O'Conner reaffirmed Roe and further held that states can prevent abortions on viable pregnancies. Had the state of Arizona simply followed the path laid down in the Casey decision rather than seek to deny the rights of all women who do not hold to a particular religious view, then that law would have met with litte issue with me. No matter, as I have said many times, this nation is a nation of people that hold many different views on subjects of which ALL of them need to be respected and when we as a nation seek to legislate based on a singular view as in this case then we deny hard won rights to others and it really is that simple. I might add this too, those same people who wrote this bill and are so pro-life and concerned with womens issues had no problem passing bills that allow preditory collection companies to thrive here as well as, passing bills that enforce Arizona's death penalty. So perhaps it's best to let these legislators concentrate on whats really wrong here in Arizona, and that is the economy, and leave the moral issues to the hearts and minds of it's citizen who are best able to deal with them.

The studies showing that fetuses can feel pain after 20 weeks and the increased risk to the woman after that time are not religious based assumptions, but rather medical facts based on science. I am surprised the left is having trouble getting their heads around that.

The reason for ultrasound is to determine the exact gestational age of the fetus. Why would the left be so opposed to a thorough exam of the woman and the age of the fetus prior to abortion? Would they rather an unskilled person just perform the procedure without question?

 

[Liability]

Life begins at the formation of the spermatozoa or the ovum of -- at least -- the biological parents of the future human being.

We will work out the math later.

 

[amrchaos]

Well, while the nutter try to convince us that human life begins two weeks before conception, I am going to piss out some dead pre-human life.

Note: Urination is how God intended for us to get rid of waste, that includes dead sperm cells. So how long does the sperm lives in the human body? I doubt it is two weeks (and even shorter if you have a hot nutsack. But then, if sperm is life, then life is created in the scrotum. If we create that process in the lab, what would the nutballs say to that?)

 

[Liability]

Well, while the nutter try to convince us that human life begins two weeks before conception, I am going to piss out some dead pre-human life.

Note: Urination is how God intended for us to get rid of waste, that includes dead sperm cells. So how long does the sperm lives in the human body? I doubt it is two weeks (and even shorter if you have a hot nutsack. But then, if sperm is life, then life is created in the scrotum. If we create that process in the lab, what would the nutballs say to that?)

. . . you spend too much time playing with your little nutsack.

 

[Navy1960]

Utter bullshit.

It's clear that you have not read the law or a valid synopsis of same. You state your anti-religion bigotry, not a factual critique of the law.

Anything which might harm the profits of the multi-billion dollar abortion industry faux outrages, faux outrages I tells ya, the party faithful.

Actually I've had the chance to read every sentence of the House version and the Senate Version and they both refelct the wishes of the Center for Arizona Policy a Christian faith based group supported by one of the bills principle sponsors Rep. Kimberly Yee.

Life – Center for Arizona Policy is dedicated to the protection of human life from the time of conception to the end of natural life. We promote public policy to protect the unborn child and their mothers. In further support of life, we oppose euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, human cloning, and embryonic stem cell research.
About Us | Center for Arizona Policy

Now in the text of the bill you have this.

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

Now as only a few religions in the United States recognize this as being a true statement mainly Islam and Christianity, and that does not square with the beliefs of some others such as the Jewish faith...

In Jewish law, life begins at birth, that is, at the time when all of the child's head has emerged from the mother's body, or when the child is more than halfway out if the head does not come out first. The consequences of this are discussed in more detail in the section on Abortion.

Birth and the First Month of Life / Torah 101 / Mechon Mamre


and if you look at the Buddhist faith it...

Buddhism does consider abortion to be the taking of a human life. At the same time, Buddhists generally are reluctant to intervene in a woman's personal decision to terminate a pregnancy. Buddhism may discourage abortion, but it also discourages imposing rigid moral absolutes.

and Islam...

Muslim views on abortion are shaped by the Quran and Hadith as well as by the opinions of legal and religious scholars and commentators. In Islam, the fetus is believed to become a living soul after four months of gestation...

That is just a few of the main stream religions in the United States views on the subject, now as we have this statement in the Consititution.

1st Amendment...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Establisment Clause :

"[t]he First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another."

Frankly I find it somewhat interesting that some would shout to anyone who would listen that the Healthcare Act is taking away peoples Freedom of Religion as given in the 1st Amendment but as so willing to step on those same rights for others when it comes to another subject they happen to believe in. When you build a Law like HB2036 from the outset that does not take into consideration all the views of your citizens and more so a narrow view that is not held by others then you seek to take away rights from those same people. Further as I have said many times in " Planned Parenthood v. Casey" Justice O'Conner reaffirmed Roe and further held that states can prevent abortions on viable pregnancies. Had the state of Arizona simply followed the path laid down in the Casey decision rather than seek to deny the rights of all women who do not hold to a particular religious view, then that law would have met with litte issue with me. No matter, as I have said many times, this nation is a nation of people that hold many different views on subjects of which ALL of them need to be respected and when we as a nation seek to legislate based on a singular view as in this case then we deny hard won rights to others and it really is that simple. I might add this too, those same people who wrote this bill and are so pro-life and concerned with womens issues had no problem passing bills that allow preditory collection companies to thrive here as well as, passing bills that enforce Arizona's death penalty. So perhaps it's best to let these legislators concentrate on whats really wrong here in Arizona, and that is the economy, and leave the moral issues to the hearts and minds of it's citizen who are best able to deal with them.

The studies showing that fetuses can feel pain after 20 weeks and the increased risk to the woman after that time are not religious based assumptions, but rather medical facts based on science. I am surprised the left is having trouble getting their heads around that.

The reason for ultrasound is to determine the exact gestational age of the fetus. Why would the left be so opposed to a thorough exam of the woman and the age of the fetus prior to abortion? Would they rather an unskilled person just perform the procedure without question?

First of all I don't speak for the Left, so I cannot answer that, as for an exam of a woman, it's my belief that a surgical abortion procedure should be performed by a licensed professional and in most states including this one, that was the law prior to HB2036. So then it becomes an issue of Legislating a moral view with HB2036 and the need to do an Ultra-Sound serves no purpose other than to be used a tool to frighten the woman having the procedure, it also does not take into consideration that a licensed professional has the skills needed to make that determination. If that is the case why have a license process in the state of Arizona for these professionals if you do not trust them enough to make the right diagnosis for their patients. Forgive me but, this law is overbroad and built upon a concept that is "religious" in nature and has little of anything to do with stopping abortions after 20 weeks and it's aim is to stop all of them through legal intimidation. If the aim was to stop abortions on "viable" life which I am all for by the way then the bill would have followed the Casey decision. One other thing comes to mind here as well, "methotrexate" which is the drug used in the so called morning after pill, can be considered given what the law claims can now be considered a surgical procedure and then the question becomes, does a person who takes this drug subject themselves to punishment under this law simply by taking it ? In short there was no need for this law and it falls into the recent catagory of laws passed here in Arizona, that will end up costing this state more than it does good because it was written with a single view in mind while not respecting the views of all the citizens of this state.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nazi....

The sad thing is that even THAT is a more thoughtful answer than the retarded skank Jillian offered.

 

[Uncensored2008]

it's always funny watching one of the stupidest and least respected members of the forum try to insult one of the smartest and most respected members of the forum.

Then stop trying to insult me, skank.

I applaud you for the self-awareness that you are indeed about the stupidest member of the forum.

You know Jillian, there are people like you, with IQ's in the low 80's, who do fine in life. You have choices, you could choose not to be a skank.

Standard Disclaimer: I'm just saying

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why do you hate manatees?

She's a leftist.

Hate defines leftists.

 

[jillian]

it's always funny watching one of the stupidest and least respected members of the forum try to insult one of the smartest and most respected members of the forum.

Then stop trying to insult me, skank.

I applaud you for the self-awareness that you are indeed about the stupidest member of the forum.

You know Jillian, there are people like you, with IQ's in the low 80's, who do fine in life. You have choices, you could choose not to be a skank.

Standard Disclaimer: I'm just saying

refer to my post above...

it's particularly entertaining watching you sink to calling women 'skanks'...

but par for the course for miserable failures like you.

just sayin'

and you might want to see a doctor about your lack of connection with reality.

 

[BDBoop]

That's a whole 'nother thread, J. Look at how people define a woman's behavior vs a man's.