Advertisement

Archive for Sunday, February 17, 2008

Bills to tighten late-term laws

February 17, 2008

Advertisement

Abortion hearings

Hearings on House Bills 2615 and 2736 will be at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday and Wednesday before the House Federal and State Affairs Committee in Room 313-South in the Capitol.

— The abortion wars continue in the Kansas Legislature this week.

The House Federal and State Affairs Committee will have hearings on two bills that anti-abortion advocates say will improve enforcement of late-term abortions.

"All Kansans have a right to expect that existing laws limiting late-term abortions in Kansas will be followed and enforced," said state Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe.

But abortion rights advocates say the measures constitute harassment of those trying to terminate their pregnancies.

"Once again, legislators are abusing their power and position so they can pry into women's medical records, as well as the records of reproductive health care providers," the group ProKanDo said in a statement.

The bills hit the Legislature as a grand jury in Wichita is investigating Dr. George Tiller, one of the few late-term abortion providers in the nation. Tiller has denied any wrongdoing. And in Johnson County, a grand jury is investigating Planned Parenthood's clinic in Overland Park. Planned Parenthood also denies any wrongdoing. Both grand juries were seated by petition drives spearheaded by anti-abortion groups.

On the legislative front, Kinzer has sponsored House Bills 2615 and 2736.

Among the numerous changes to the state's late-term abortion law, the proposals would require abortion providers to offer a woman the opportunity to view an ultrasound image of the fetus.

Another provision would allow prosecution for violation of Kansas' late-term abortion law to be brought by the attorney general, or district or county attorney where the alleged violation occurred.

Kinzer called the measures "common sense protective provisions."

But ProKanDo described them as "outrageous bills" that will affect "all women who come from across the country seeking reproductive health care, as Kansas is home to one of the few late-term providers in the nation."

Under Kansas law, abortions of viable fetuses are prohibited after the 22nd week of pregnancy unless necessary to save the mother's life or prevent severe harm to the woman's physical or mental health.

Comments

Tanya Spacek 6 years, 1 month ago

No, you don't get it. The question does dignify an answer, either yes or no. Then the following question would be, "What are they personally doing for already-born children who aren't their own, all of these unwanted children they're working so hard to make sure are born?" I'm not a de-population people hater, but the world is not in danger of de-populating anytime soon, except through the various catastrophes that will result with overpopulation. But that is another, unrelated issue. Abortion is not going to wipe out the human race. Since you are not willing to directly answer the queston and ainstead you attempt to deflect it with name calling, I will have to assume that I struck a nerve, that you, in fact, don't care much about what happens to women faced with unwanted pregnancies or the unwanted children that result. Where's the commitment? Are you willing to become an adoptive parent and take in a bunch of unwanted kids?

0

GeraSchmidt 6 years, 1 month ago

Oh, I get it! You're another one of those de-population people-haters, right? "Unwanted" humans are little more than vermin? If you had your way, should these older kids, in the foster care system due to criminal parents, be murdered, too, like murder of the pre-born? Your retarded question, "Do Pro-Lifer's care about older kids?" doesn't dignify an answer. Stoney hearts that exhibit one excuse and objection to life after another, endless muss, rob the world and everyone around it of sunshine and treasure. Vile vs. Virtue. What a concept.

0

Tanya Spacek 6 years, 1 month ago

I'm not talking about newborns. I'm talking about the kids who need homes and who can no longer rely on being little and cute.

Do pro-lifers care about kids once they're no longer nuzzly little newborns?

0

GeraSchmidt 6 years, 2 months ago

LuckyNun:

There are no newborns to adopt. You've promoted and encouraged their pre-born destiny in death, remember?

Foreign adoption is foreign government run and outrageously expensive with years of waiting and miles of paperwork. Their agenda is to age out the child and then have them in the child sex slave industry.

0

beobachter 6 years, 2 months ago

Because the ardent pro-life suddenly remembered some important church events and don't have time for those little meaningless details. Right parkay, marion, where are you true believers?

0

Tanya Spacek 6 years, 2 months ago

Boy, it sure got quiet when adoption was brought up. So, how many ardent pro-life people are out there snapping up available kids?

I don't mean blue-eyed, blonde-haired infants, either, as OF COURSE there's a waiting list for THOSE.

How about all the other kids who are currently in need of a good home?

0

GeraSchmidt 6 years, 2 months ago

~ Prisons are packed with murderers who have no guilt. Never did, never will. ~ 2 million couples are on 12 year waiting lists for adoption of NEWBORNS. ~ Foster care system is extremely corrupt. Children are from DRUG ADDICTED, criminal parents. ~ Teens see constant smut media EVERYWHERE!: Sex, violence, demeaning of males, drugs, demonic lyrics and logos, and the encouragement and promotion of artificial contraception. Teens rarely have wholesome role models or mentor. Many have no father figure in home. ~ Why is the female suicide rate leaping by 35%? Why is meth a 71% female substance of abuse? The media won't tell you it's related to ABORTION! 47 million abortions create a troubled web of invalidated forbidden grief. ~ Some say a handicapped child will ruin your life and abortion is recommended. Many "perfect" and "gifted" children have "ruined lives" of families. A handicapped child can't ruin your life anymore then the next kid. Unless you are some kind of amazing woo-woo future psychic, there is no way to predict the future for yourself, or any human being's life. Period. (Rich become poor; poor become rich; Healthy become sick; sick become healthy; winners become losers; losers become winners).

~ Debate OVER! Abortion kills an ACTUAL HUMAN. Humans are dependent of others throughout lifetime. Each stage of life requires different levels... In the beginning, womb; later, people delivering a plant or cow, air and water. We are dependent creatures. The more natural life one lives, the better. Pollution, chemicals, artificial contraception, and animalistic sex drive desires fulfilled, hurt the human physically and spiritually.

~ "You reap what you sow! (...and never in the same season)." is the basic fundamental rule. How about you? Got Karma? Denying a guilt is a greater guilt. Eventually something gives; be it health, character and your very life's destiny. Purity rules. Always has. Always will.

~ Abortionists are considered the washed-up, low-life, bottom-feeders of the medical profession. They perform a blind surgery, and sell the human body parts. Vile. They don't want minor's parents to know; don't want to show the patient a vision of what they are removing; nor do they want to show you the fingers, arms, face, genitals, legs, chest, feet, and blood of the human they removed. Neither do they show you the body parts price list, and what your fetus brings to the money mill. ~ Let's look at creating solutions for a woman and man involved with an "unexpected surprise":

Send the pg woman to a gov. funded private hush-hush school/care facility. Also end the "father" away until the baby is born . There they can learn life's lessons and choose a life path for all that will best empower them. Fund it with government money that is currently going for artificial birth control (joke) and abortions.

I have to end here today. Thanks. God Bless the cursed, and God bless you!

0

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 2 months ago

pisafromthewest says, 'And the desires of the "most ardent supporters" of abortion : aka liberals : to increase taxes only on the "rich" to pay for handouts to the poor isn't "imposing obligations?"'

AHA! It comes out. Your smokescreen couldn't hide the obvious.

"And yet one more time, genius, pure genius."

Looks like some of us are paying attention. If that rises to the level of genius in your book, well...OK. Thanks for the compliment. Just keeping it real.

0

jonas 6 years, 2 months ago

"And the desires of the "most ardent supporters" of abortion : aka liberals : to increase taxes only on the "rich" to pay for handouts to the poor isn't "imposing obligations?" Glad you don't have a problem with English."

You are, of course, assuming that anyone who believes in one of those issues HAS to believe in all of them. That could, perhaps, not be the case all of the time.

0

pisafromthewest 6 years, 2 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says:

"Hmmmm, two unrelated, independent posters had issues in understanding the meaning of your post, and the first place you look for the source of the problem is our reading comprehension?"

Wow. Two. Gee, guess that proves it.

There's 73 posts to this thread, and you two are the only ones who had a difficult time understanding what I said. Take it from there.

"The only component of your statement that I did not take at your literal expression was the use of "choice", which I took to mean "abortion choice"."

Which was also the part you took issue with. Gee. In other words, you're arguing with the only part of my post you put your own meaning on.

Well, you guys have been great ... do you rehearse this comedy act? You do realize, don't you, that you're arguing with yourself, not me? That your entire objection is predicated on the assumption that your interpretation of someone else's words is more accurate than the person's who wrote the words? And it's not what I said, but your interpretation of what I said, that you find objectionable?

"you must first demonstrate that the pro-choice movement does indeed seek to impose obligations on others. You have yet to do so."

And the desires of the "most ardent supporters" of abortion ... aka liberals ... to increase taxes only on the "rich" to pay for handouts to the poor isn't "imposing obligations?" Glad you don't have a problem with English.

And yet one more time, genius, pure genius.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 2 months ago

"Not my problem that you two have issues reading English. Good luck with that."


Hmmmm, two unrelated, independent posters had issues in understanding the meaning of your post, and the first place you look for the source of the problem is our reading comprehension?

There is a common denominator here, let's see if you can find it.....

============================================

"since both of you insist on placing your own meaning on my response to her comment, you have issues with what you thought I was saying."


Placing meaning? Your comment was thus:

"As the most ardent supporters of "choice" are those people in favor of imposing obligations on others when it suits their purposes"

The meaning I took from this is that you believe pro-choicers are in favor of imposing obligations on others. What did I miss? The only component of your statement that I did not take at your literal expression was the use of "choice", which I took to mean "abortion choice".

Even if your comment was in response to another person's, my question (what about the pro-choice movement involves imposing one's will on another?) is still relevant. Even if you were pointing out that both sides are hypocritical, my original point--that the pro-choice movement is anything but oppressive and controlling--remains. In order to prove that the pro-choice side is hypocritical, you must first demonstrate that the pro-choice movement does indeed seek to impose obligations on others. You have yet to do so.

0

jonas 6 years, 2 months ago

right_thinker (Anonymous) says:

Exactly, 'live' being the operative word. Whilst some are deep in endless self-debate and thought, death swiftly swoops in like a chicken on a Junebug, and the stimulus reactorerererers are still breathing. I just want to help you guys out a bit, that's all."

So. . . you're prepared to state that your methods have or will substantially reduce death? How's that been working out for you?

0

pisafromthewest 6 years, 2 months ago

"I'm with flock on this one."

Birds of a feather:

Not my problem that you two have issues reading English. Good luck with that.

So let me get this straight : I made a response to a particular poster's comment : since both of you insist on placing your own meaning on my response to her comment, you have issues with what you thought I was saying. Maybe I should point out the last line of the post you quoted from: "So you see a contradiction in the agenda of conservatives; my post was intended to point out that the contradiction runs both ways." Sorry if you two weren't bright enough to figure out that "my post" referred to the one Dorothy responded to (i.e. the question I posed to agtprovocateuse about ethical responsibilities). This should have been obvious, except to the two Kreskin brothers who know what people are thinking. I find it very, very amusing that your argument is that other people are trying to force their beliefs on others, yet you object to my comment because of what you (incorrectly) believe I was saying.

Again, genius, pure genius.

0

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 2 months ago

pisafromthewest says, "Not all of them think they know what a person is saying better than the person who said it."

Not our problem that you have issues expressing yourself there, pisa. Good luck with that. In your attempt to clarify, you still say,

"referring to taxation to redistribute wealth, and having nothing to do with imposing rules like preventing abortion."

But, yet, you describe it as direct juxtaposition. If it has nothing to do, then your juxtaposition lacks context and target, and there's the problem. Your attempt to explain it away fails.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 2 months ago

I'm with flock on this one. You are using "context" as a smokescreen. Your quote has the same meaning, no matter what it was in response to. Here, let's discuss:

"As the most ardent supporters of "choice" are those people in favor of imposing obligations on others when it suits their purposes."

-How, exactly, does the meaning of this comment change based on the comment to which you were responding? In fact, how does this quote refute Dorothy Hoyt-Reed's comment? (The most ardent supporters of making abortion illegal are those people who are against helping the poor)

She made a claim about abortion opponents, to which you replied by making a comment about pro-choice advocates. It seems to me that both COULD be true--in other words, abortion opponents could be against helping the poor and pro-choice advocates could be in favor of imposing obligations simultaneously.

Or let's look at this from a different perspective--defend your claim that pro-choice advocates are in favor of imposing obligations. Specifically, what obligation do pro-choicers impose upon people? How do they implement their will upon others? If your comment was simply taken out of context, then it should be no trouble to explain how this comment makes sense.

0

pisafromthewest 6 years, 2 months ago

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says:

"Nice try, but no points for you. I read and re-read the related posts and your statement, and although you try to paint it within an alternate context, your quote appears to have the same meaning whether in the context you describe or standing on it's own."

Let's see ... my comment was in direct juxtaposition and response to, and even paraphrased, dorothyhr's comment about obligations to the poor. So I can see that it obviously must have been about abortion choice. Genius, pure genius.

I'm equally content to let others judge the context of my comment. Not all of them think they know what a person is saying better than the person who said it.

0

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 2 months ago

pisafromthewest says, "Gee, both of you, nice way to take comments completely out of context."

Nice try, but no points for you. I read and re-read the related posts and your statement, and although you try to paint it within an alternate context, your quote appears to have the same meaning whether in the context you describe or standing on it's own.

Support of social welfare programs and support of parental (pre-parent) obligations, even if you try to connect them, as some have attempted, still reflects an attitude of "we will tell you what you must do and then bear no responsibility for the result". That's where it is wrong-headed; forcing a decision against someone's will with no accountability or responsibility for the outcome of the decision. Kinda pisses all over the freedom thing some of us rather enjoy.

There's your recap with a little context peppered in.

"Please try to keep up before you comment."

You might try that, pisa. I'm content to let others read and decide who is not keeping up.

0

jonas 6 years, 2 months ago

"yeah_right (Anonymous) says:

Perhaps, but the only women that I know of who have had an abortion have been affected emotionally and spiritually in a negative way. The guilt has not left them."

How many women have you known of who have had an abortion? More to the point, did they all immediately come and tell you after they were done?

0

pisafromthewest 6 years, 2 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says:

"As the most ardent supporters of "choice" are those people in favor of imposing obligations on others when it suits their purposes."

-

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm:.

The pro-CHOICE people are the ones imposing?


a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says:

pisafromthewest says, "As the most ardent supporters of "choice" are those people in favor of imposing obligations on others when it suits their purposes."

Your comment has the situation 100% bass ackwards.


Gee, both of you, nice way to take comments completely out of context. Try reading back to the posts that the part you quoted developed from and maybe you'd have some glimmer of an idea of what I had been referring to.

A brief recap: One poster (agtprovocateuse) made a comment to the effect that even if a fetus is a "baby" the mother is under no obligation to sustain its life. I questioned that poster as to whether he believed the rich are under any ethical obligation to support the poor through their taxes, and another poster (dorothyhr) responded "The most ardent supporters of making abortion illegal are those people who are against helping the poor." The line you quoted from my post directly followed and was in response to that comment, referring to taxation to redistribute wealth, and having nothing to do with imposing rules like preventing abortion.

Please try to keep up before you comment.

0

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 2 months ago

So, I guess the bill being considered needs to be amended to make guilt a crime, because if you feel guilty, then you must have done something wrong and our goverment can't allow any wrong to go unpunished.

Heck, I had a plant die because I forgot to water the poor thing for awhile. I was guilty, no doubt about it. So, I guess I should march my butt down to the police and turn myself in right away.

Doin' it right now...NOT!

0

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 2 months ago

tvc (Anonymous) says:

"The person I know does not regret it."

Same here.

0

americorps 6 years, 2 months ago

What happened to kathy and her "for her to breed or let her bleed" bumper sticker?

0

logicsound04 6 years, 2 months ago

"The guilt has not left them."


And people feel guilt from failing to donate to charity.

If the occurrence of guilt is justifiable basis for making something illegal, then I suppose we should make it illegal not to donate to charity....

0

agtprovocateuse 6 years, 2 months ago

yeah_right:

I'm not disputing that some women may regret having abortions. However, I would argue that many of the women who regret having abortions are women who had STRONG moral qualms about the procedure to begin with. Women who are ardently pro-choice, who believe that a fetus is not a person, or who believe that a woman's right to choose trumps any rights a fetus might have, are less likely to have lingering feelings of guilt. I would never suggest that a woman have an abortion if she feels it is in any way unethical, but the fact that some women do so despite such beliefs certainly does not make me any less supportive of the rights of women in general to abort.

I would also suggest that the reason you know women who have regretted their abortions, but that I know women who feel no guilt or remorse about theirs, has something to do with the fact that I am (I'm assuming) a stronger supporter of abortion rights than you are. Isn't it possible that we surround ourselves by like-minded people, and that the women you know who have had abortions fall into the first category discussed above, while the women I know fall into the second?

0

tvc 6 years, 2 months ago

The person I know does not regret it.

0

yeah_right 6 years, 2 months ago

agtprovocateuse:

Perhaps, but the only women that I know of who have had an abortion have been affected emotionally and spiritually in a negative way. The guilt has not left them.

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 2 months ago

"Imagine a world where people thought, instead of just reacting to stimulus." -jonas

"Some folks live just such a life: years upon years:-Agnostick

Exactly, 'live' being the operative word. Whilst some are deep in endless self-debate and thought, death swiftly swoops in like a chicken on a Junebug, and the stimulus reactorerererers are still breathing. I just want to help you guys out a bit, that's all.

Your debates have exhilerated me!

0

agtprovocateuse 6 years, 2 months ago

yeah_right:

Don't you think that there are plenty of women who have had abortions and are "SOOOOO" thankful that they did?

0

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 2 months ago

pisafromthewest says, "As the most ardent supporters of "choice" are those people in favor of imposing obligations on others when it suits their purposes."

Your comment has the situation 100% bass ackwards.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 2 months ago

"As the most ardent supporters of "choice" are those people in favor of imposing obligations on others when it suits their purposes."


Ummmmmmmmmmmmm....

The pro-CHOICE people are the ones imposing?

Really?

Maybe it goes something like this:

"I impose upon you your right to choose. I am forcing you to make a choice. Submit to my demand that you choose the correct path for you"

Or not.

0

yeah_right 6 years, 2 months ago

I think that you would find that almost ALL parents who debated having an abortion during pregnancy and did not are SOOOOO thankful that they did not.

0

agtprovocateuse 6 years, 2 months ago

Marion writes:

"If that is the way that you realy [sic] feel about it go to the vet and get fixed as you should never become gravid."

Marion,

I'm a lesbian. Not really worried about getting knocked up any time soon. But thanks for your concern. :-)

0

Flap Doodle 6 years, 2 months ago

Enforcer got sent to sleep with the fishes again? Imagine that.

0

Agnostick 6 years, 2 months ago

Some folks don't have to "imagine" it, jonas.

Some folks live just such a life... years upon years...

0

jonas 6 years, 2 months ago

That's pretty depressing, Right-thinker. Imagine a world where people thought, instead of just reacting to stimulus. Or where we did look for solutions, instead of dogmatic, impractical, unfeasible talking points that, in the end, accomplish as little as the actually mean in the first place.

No wonder the world sometimes seems like its going to hell.

0

americorps 6 years, 2 months ago

THe bible instructs priests to perform abortions on adulterous women, but the false Christians of course pretend it is not there as they continue to do the work of the devil by spreading blasphemy and false witness..

and Marion, on the other hand, is nuttier than a fruitcake, trying to maintain that grammar makes a baby.

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 2 months ago

A moderate stance will get you killed. While moderates--centrists are sitting around 'discussing' what may or may not be and buildings are getting blown up, that makes for a short life span.

At least the left/hard-left have taken a stand and probably would fight to the end for what they believe in. I respect them for that.

This moderate/centrist crap is just that----crap---a huge steaming time-wasting pile of crap.

And BO if anyone has a freind---at LJW--how else would this forum rules serial abuser stay around--although this poster is in at least the third or fourth life on LJW.

0

sdinges 6 years, 2 months ago

Marion: "Why do they not tell folks that they are merely temporarily bloated with a churning chunk of protoplasm?"

This line is so going to go in my shower invitations when I end having a kid.

0

Multidisciplinary 6 years, 2 months ago

Aw..I see. Thanks for the info. Kathy is out as Enforcer? My, my. I guess I missed it. Hard to imagine, but I'm not on here ALL the time LOL. I just get bored a lot. Tonight, my hopefuls are Breaking Bad at 10 and then Masterpiece. Of course, I'll have something else programmed in to jump back and forth to, too unsettled to just sit and watch one. And then a night full of paid programming listings to try to find something worthy interspersed.

0

Agnostick 6 years, 2 months ago

Most of us have, jonas.

Most of us. ;)

0

jonas 6 years, 2 months ago

It seems that there are a few "slippery slope" issues on both sides that get people jumping out of their skin afraid that it's the first in an inevitable series of steps towards total restriction and control. Any possible restriction on abortion is viewed as just a matter of time until they are illegal. Gay marriage will lead ultimately to polygamy and even bestiality. Any registration of firearms will lead to totalitarianism. Have we simply forgotten how to maintain a moderate stance, or what?

0

Agnostick 6 years, 2 months ago

Orphanages were phased out years ago, in favor of state-supported foster care.

Last time anybody talked about orphanages, Newt Gingrich was coming up for a little breather from between Callista Bisek. "Family Values," indeed.

0

Marion Lynn 6 years, 2 months ago

MD, that fool "Beobachter; aka, "Observer, ObservAr" is still pumping out the tale that "Enforcer" have a thing going, which is a large pile of biosolids.

I count "Enforcer" as one of my very good friends but it makes good press for those who ascribe to the old, "It's on the internet so it must be true!" philosophy to make more out of it.

Those people have no lives and must therefore create one for themselves on the net as Walter Winchell Wannabes.

0

beobachter 6 years, 2 months ago

keep eye on forum, watch who protects whom and see who's no longer on forum. for 10-15th time, even using her real name.

0

Multidisciplinary 6 years, 2 months ago

Marion had a MAIN squeeze? And she got dumped by??? How do people know this? Darn town's too small.

0

beobachter 6 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

beobachter 6 years, 2 months ago

and where exactly are all the anti-abortion conservatives at? have all of you adopted one?

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 2 months ago

It's about money to Tiller; the late-term are his high profit margin, bread-and-butter as far as procedures. He's no different from the corporate grabbers that the left has utter disdain for---Tiller wants the fat paychecks and he sees them about to vanish like a fart in a whirlwind. He'll fight this to the bitter end. He figures the longer he can kill viable babies, the sooner he can retire and high-tail it.

0

Flap Doodle 6 years, 2 months ago

snap writes:

" Marion (Marion Lynn) says: beobachter, aka "Observer, ObservAr" wrote:"

Trying

to

out

people

,

Nick

?

You've

failed

at

that

before

on

this

board

.

0

Marion Lynn 6 years, 2 months ago

beobachter, aka "Observer, ObservAr" wrote:

"Marion, if there are so many waiting to adopt, why are they so many children in foster care awaiting adoption? "

Marion writes:

One reason is that silly "liberals" insist on going overseas to adopt instead of taking care of our own first.

Check the recent LJW article on that very matter.

0

beobachter 6 years, 2 months ago

Marion, if there are so many waiting to adopt, why are they so many children in foster care awaiting adoption? Ask your buddy parkay as well. Maybe between the 2 of you you can come up with and answer.

0

Multidisciplinary 6 years, 2 months ago

$%^&$&$$

Children "pre diagnosed"- born with severe handicaps. I suggest no one should comment except those who have walked the walk. The rest of you may think you can relate, but really you can't.

0

Marion Lynn 6 years, 2 months ago

agtprovocateuse (Anonymous) wrote:

"And it certainly doesn't mean the government should be able to force me to allow said homeless person to live in my house, eat my food, and generally make me miserable for the next nine months of my life. :-)"

Marion writes:

If that is the way that you realy feel about it go to the vet and get fixed as you should never become gravid.

Classic and irrefutable proof that "choice" is intended primarily to exempt people; both men and women, from the responsibility of their actions at the expence of the life of the resulting baby!

agtprovocateuse (Anonymous) wrote:

"Does a fetus that results from a rape have less of a right to life than a fetus that results from consensual sex?"

Marion writes:

Good question and the answer is "No!"

There are plenty of people looking to adopt so give the poor kid a chance.

It's not the baby's fault and the baby should not have to die for the crimes of others.

0

pisafromthewest 6 years, 2 months ago

dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says:

"The most ardent supporters of making abortion illegal are those people who are against helping the poor."

As the most ardent supporters of "choice" are those people in favor of imposing obligations on others when it suits their purposes.

Before you get too worked up in class envy, my example was very narrowly limited to a specific question directed at a post made by agtprovocateuse, i.e. when a mother-to-be is under no legal or ethical responsibility to sustain life even if it is considered a "baby," then why should anyone be legally or ethically obligated to provide sustenance to anyone else who can't take care of themselves?

Incidentally, parental obligations are not without limits. You do not have to provide children with their own car, a cell phone, the latest pair of $300 athletic shoes, a swimming pool, a plasma TV in their bedroom, concert tickets, or private schools. Not everyone is going to be able to afford these things for their children. Some people can. Are they supposed to be obligated to see that other people's children have those things too?

You do have to provide your children with food, shelter, clothing, protection, medical treatment, and education. For those that can not provide those minimum necessities for sustaining life to their children (or themselves), our society has collectively decided that those who are capable of contributing to their welfare should do so. The liberals are the most adament in fighting for ever more ways to redistribute wealth, wanting to build a system where the government (funded by the taxes collected from the well off) should take care of everyone (e.g. nationalized healthcare). Yet at the same time they have decided that the unborn, the most helpless of creatures and those who have no one to speak for them, are SOL. So you see a contradiction in the agenda of conservatives; my post was intended to point out that the contradiction runs both ways.

0

agtprovocateuse 6 years, 2 months ago

Aim:

You make a good point, to which I have several responses. I'll start with this one: what if the woman is raped? And if you concede that a woman who is raped should be able to have an abortion, then aren't you admitting what I've suspected all along - that most people who oppose abortion do so not because of the "innocence" of the fetus, but because of the "guilt" of the woman carrying it? Does a fetus that results from a rape have less of a right to life than a fetus that results from consensual sex?

0

alm77 6 years, 2 months ago

agtprovocateuse, so the mother's choice to have sex and run the risk (every birth control tells of its risks of failure, so you are still assuming some risk) of becoming pregnant still leaves her with no obligation?

0

agtprovocateuse 6 years, 2 months ago

pisa:

I understand the point you're making, and I think it's a valid one. Yes, I believe it's my moral and legal duty to pay taxes, and some of those taxes will be used to keep poor people from "freezing/starving/dying." That doesn't mean, however, that I think the government should be able to force me to invite a homeless person home for dinner. And it certainly doesn't mean the government should be able to force me to allow said homeless person to live in my house, eat my food, and generally make me miserable for the next nine months of my life. :-)

0

Marion Lynn 6 years, 2 months ago

dorothyr wrote:

"The woman, who spoke on condition that she be identified as "Jane Doe," said she discovered halfway through her pregnancy that her unborn baby had a serious heart defect and had a slim chance of surviving the birth."

Marion writes:

"slim chance"; that means that there is a chance and that chance should be allowed.

Except in the world of the Baby Killers who stand at the station pointing to the left and to the right; thus determining which are to be killed and which are to live.

0

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 6 years, 2 months ago

pisafromthewest The most ardent supporters of making abortion illegal are those people who are against helping the poor. Make sure they get born, but after that it's a dog eat dog world, and if you ain't ruthless like us, you'll never amount to anything. And don't give me the tired line about if you work hard in the US, you too can be rich. My parents worked hard all their lives. I see young people working 2 jobs just to afford a place to live. I see rich people taking jobs out of the US, so they can make even more money. I don't see too much concern for people needing a job that pays a real wage. Maybe they just want more people at a lower price to mow their yards, drive their cars, and wipe their rears, instead of having to bring in all these illegal aliens to do it. Yes, rich people are the gods of our society. Give birth to their servents, now! Yessir massah.

0

pisafromthewest 6 years, 2 months ago

agtprovocateuse (Anonymous) says:

"Even if we assume for the sake of argument that it is a "baby" and that it does have a right to life, it doesn't follow that a pregnant woman has a legal (or even ethical) duty to sustain that life."

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that rich people have a legal or ethical duty to support the poor through their taxes? Or can we let them freeze/starve/die?

0

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 6 years, 2 months ago

Again, none of the all mighty men who have all the answers and speak to god directly want to address real life situations. Of course, it's not a situation they will ever be in, but they can certainly tell others how to run their lives. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/feb...

0

agtprovocateuse 6 years, 2 months ago

I'm not sure why you are all so hung up on whether it's a "baby" or a "fetus." Even if we assume for the sake of argument that it is a "baby" and that it does have a right to life, it doesn't follow that a pregnant woman has a legal (or even ethical) duty to sustain that life. Let's say that I need an organ transplant in order to save my life. I'm a person. I have a right to life. And yet my mother has no legal (or ethical) duty to give me an organ, even though I will die without it. Similarly, even if a fetus is a person and has a right to life, it doesn't follow that a woman has to allow the fetus to use her body in order to sustain its life.

Let's say that I'm on my death bed, and that all it would take to save me is the touch of Angelina Jolie's cool hand on my fevered brow. I'm a person. I have a right to life. It doesn't follow that Ms. Jolie has a legal (or ethical) duty to save my life, even though it would take little effort on her part to do so. Sure, it might be morally praiseworthy for her to fly to Kansas and save me from certain death. But that doesn't mean we should pass a law requiring her to jump on the next plane.

0

Ray Parker 6 years, 2 months ago

A baby's heart starts beating 18 days after conception, implying enough development of brain and nervous system to control the heartbeat. By the end of two months gestation, the baby has grown and attached its own umbilical cord for drawing oxygen and nutrients from the mother, though the two blood circulation systems do not mix. By then, the baby has taken control of the mother's pregnancy by causing the release of hormones throughout her body. By 20 weeks, the baby is undeniably capable of suffering intense pain when mangled, dismembered, poisoned, or beheaded in a filthy, unsafe abortion mill. Yes, human beings are babies before they are born. The German killers at the Auschwitz death camp saved piles of baby shoes, still preserved, because they thought the baby shoes were worth something - but not the babies. We are no more civilized in Kansas today, it seems.

0

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 6 years, 2 months ago

Of course no one hear wants to address the very real situation of the woman in the article that accompanied this one in the paper. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/feb... In Marion's view this woman would be forced to carry this poor child to birth; although it would probably have died in the mother's womb before it was born, and most certainly would have died shortly after birth. This wasn't some young girl who suddenly decided she didn't want to keep her baby. But, of course, Marion can't get pregnant, so he would never be faced with deciding whether to carry a baby soon to be dead to term, or ending the pain quicker. I'm sure he would have wanted this woman to suffer until full term, even if the baby had died inside of here. Nine months or nothing.

0

bondmen 6 years, 2 months ago

Have you seen Bella or Juno?

We should counsel the young mother who just had sex, but didn't want a baby, that she should give a full life to the new life she began by offering the baby to a family who will love and cherish it and who'll be forever gratreful.

For babys not as readily adopted the orphanage was a time tested success for many years and for many people - and can be again today if there were a sufficient number of children available, i.e., no longer aborted.

These are superior choices to the abortion choice!

0

Marion Lynn 6 years, 2 months ago

Pisa:

According to the baby killers and in that category I include those who profess to be "pro-choice", as being "pro-choice" grants tacit approval to baby killing, a baby is a baby when the want it to be one and not when they don't; "not" being primarily when they merely want to kill said baby for reasons of their own.

0

pisafromthewest 6 years, 2 months ago

beobachter (Anonymous) says:

"Marion, it is not a baby until it is born."

A woman goes into early labor, say at 20 weeks. The less-than-fully developed fetus is born, and the doctor drops it on the floor, putting an end to its desperate attempts to draw air into its undeveloped lungs. Being post-partum, this was a baby, regardless of the fact that it would have lived for minutes at best, and the doctor is charged with negligent homicide.

Another woman has second thoughts and decides to abort her fetus the day before her due date - after all, if it's not a baby until it's born, there's no problem with late term abortions, right? A modern day vegamatic rends its limbs from its body and purees it for easy removal. Despite the fact that this would have been a living child 24 hours later, there's no problem with this scenario, it's just cosmetic surgery for the mother.

Yep, that makes perfect sense.

0

Steve Jacob 6 years, 2 months ago

And I thought the abortion issue would go away after the "moringing after pill" went O.T.C. Oh well.

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

And since we've crossed the Godwin rule line......

Marion, since you enjoy 'describing' things that may or may not happen, exactly how does your supposed friend David Irving describe how over a million people were killed at Auschwitz.

Oh, I forgot. I didn't happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ir...

0

bettie 6 years, 2 months ago

kinzer definitely does not support medically accurate sexuality education in schools. the groups opposing these bills tried to pass a new sex ed mandate a couple of years ago. curious...none of the prononents of these bills targeted at abortion clinics were interested in providing students with information proven to reduce unwanted pregnancies (and, in a lot of cases, preventing a trip to the clinic).

and as a sidenote, all clinics already do ultrasounds for patients to view. contrary to what seems to be popular belief, they want women to make informed decisions.

0

KDW 6 years, 2 months ago

Reproductive health care? How can people buy into that lie?

Here is one of the processes used to terminate pregnancies beyond 24 weeks:

"Used to abort unborn children as old as 24 weeks, this method is similar to the D&C. The difference is that forceps with sharp metal jaws are used to grasp parts of the developing baby, which are then twisted and torn away. This continues until the child's entire body is removed from the womb. Because the baby's skull has often hardened to bone by this time, the skull must sometimes be compressed or crushed to facilitate removal. If not carefully removed, sharp edges of the bones may cause cervical laceration. Bleeding from the procedure may be profuse.

Dr. Warren Hern, a Boulder, Colorado abortionist who has performed a number of D&E abortions, says they can be particularly troubling to a clinic staff and worries that this may have an effect on the quality of care a woman receives. Hern also finds them traumatic for doctors too, saying 'there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by the operator. It is before one's eyes. The sensation of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current.'" http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/images/asmf8a.html

May God have mercy on the USA for allowing this atrocity.

0

Agnostick 6 years, 2 months ago

Full text of the bills 2615 and 2637 can be found via this link:

http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-bills/index.do

I wonder if Kinzer would support promotion of secular abstinence programs in public schools?

I wonder if Kinzer would support better access to condoms in schools? Discreetly handed out, in private, by the school nurse, for example?

All the legislature in the world can't crack the teflon shield of HIPAA.

The only way to successfully shut down Tiller's late-term abortion services, is to dry up his client base.

The #1 cause of abortion is the unwanted pregnancy.

The only way to successfully reduce the number of abortions, is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

No legislation can accomplish that feat.

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com http://www.uscentrist.org http://www.americanplan.org

0

Marion Lynn 6 years, 2 months ago

Hmmmmm...................

I nearly forgot!

The whole "it's not a baby 'til it's "born"" thing is merely a a slick way of getting around the homicide laws!

See, if the "doctor" sticks the scissors into the baby's skull, sucks out the brain and collapses the skull before the baby has exited the birth canal, it's not murder!

oh and forgive my use of the term "baby"

i should perhaps use a term which fosters a bit more detachment, don't you think?

sorry

i forgot

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

And there is a lot more than grammar which make Marions logic weak. I would start with his weak logic.

0

Marion Lynn 6 years, 2 months ago

dorothyr wrote:

"Grammar makes your argument weak. They are having a baby. They don't have a baby"

Marion writes:

OK, as I asked; what is it that bloats them up; Velveeta?.

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

I call Godwin Rule. Of course you knew it wouldn't take too long here anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

0

bondmen 6 years, 2 months ago

Those with murder in their hearts saw nothing wrong with slavery or the Jewish Holocaust and they see no, nor hear no evil with the practice of infantacide today. People don't really change, do they?

0

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 6 years, 2 months ago

Grammar makes your argument weak. They are having a baby. They don't have a baby.

0

Marion Lynn 6 years, 2 months ago

beobachter, aka, "Observer", "ObservAr" wrote:

"Marion, it is not a baby until it is born."

Marion writes:

Well, tell us why then pregnant mothers go around telling other folks that they are "having a baby"?

Why do they not tell folks that they are merely temporarily bloated with a churning chunk of protoplasm?

0

Flap Doodle 6 years, 2 months ago

snap writes:

finally, a thread where Nick Danger can rant to his hearts' content about abortion without having to do a threadjack.

BTW

,

still

having

a

wonderful

internet

life

.

0

beobachter 6 years, 2 months ago

Marion, it is not a baby until it is born. Typical of anti-abortionists to appeal to their nutty fringes.

0

Marion Lynn 6 years, 2 months ago

The LJW wrote:

"But ProKanDo described them as "outrageous bills" that will affect "all women who come from across the country seeking reproductive health care, as Kansas is home to one of the few late-term providers in the nation."

Marion writes:

Kansas is most certainly not providing a lot of "reproductive health care" for the babies!

Interesting that NewSpeak has been able to substitute the term "reproductive heath care" for "murdering babies in the womb"!

With all this love and respect for life just glowing all over the place, no one should have any difficulty understanding the violence which evidenced itself at Last Call!

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.