Advertisement

Archive for Monday, April 13, 2009

Line of text in abortion bill draws political line in the sand

April 13, 2009

Advertisement

Related document

Senate Bill 218 ( .PDF )

— It’s just one line in a 16-page bill, but abortion rights advocates say it represents a callous overreach by anti-abortionists.

Under Senate Bill 218, a woman seeking an abortion must be informed at least 24 hours before the procedure that, “The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”

Sens. Marci Francisco, D-Lawrence, and David Haley, D-Kansas City, Kan., criticized the language.

In dire situations, such as when a woman decides to have an abortion because of anencephaly, in which the fetus hasn’t developed a brain, the woman is suffering enough mental anguish without being informed that she is terminating a life, Francisco said.

Francisco said the required information about terminating a life “could be adding significant pain, and unnecessary pain.” Haley said the line in the bill amounted to “torture” for women facing the toughest of situations.

Not so, say those who oppose abortion.

They say they are hearing from women who say they consented to having abortions after being told the fetus was a mass of tissue.

Michael Schuttloffel, executive director of the Kansas Catholic Conference, said, “Our view is that giving women such medically false information is profoundly insensitive to women. Women should be fully informed, they should be given medically accurate information as they would be in the case of any other medical procedure.”

The language is taken from a law in South Dakota that has been upheld by a federal appellate court.

And Schuttloffel said it would be unfair not to provide this information.

“As a medical matter, the unborn child is not just a part of the woman’s body,” he said. “It has its own blood, its own unique DNA, its own body, etc. These are medical facts that are pertinent to the decision of whether to terminate this life. I think the real question is, why would these facts not be presented to a woman about to make the most important decision of her life?”

But opponents of the bill say the required information amounts to “state-mandated ideology,” according to Peter Brownlie, president and chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri.

“Instead of informing and empowering women confronted with the decision whether to have an abortion, this bill mandates misleading information and coercive tactics,” Brownlie said.

The Legislature approved the bill shortly before lawmakers adjourned the main part of their 2009 session. The question now is whether Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, an abortion rights supporter, will sign it into law, allow it to become law without her signature or veto it.

Her office is not saying what she will do with the measure.

The controversial line is a small part of a larger bill that also contains significant changes in the state’s late-term abortion law. If a girl or woman later believes her late-term abortion was illegal, she, her husband or parents could sue the doctor who performed the abortion for damages under the measure. And it would require physicians performing late-term abortions to note in detail the specific medical condition for the procedure.

Comments

ilikestuff 5 years ago

…Haley said the line in the bill amounted to “torture” for women facing the toughest of situations. …

A bit overstated don’t you think? When hearing of torture one typically imagines the madness of having one’s fingernails pulled out, genitals sliced and diced or application of the always popular electric shock. Now torture is so broadly defined that it includes ones emotional reaction to a simple pre-op discussion of an elective procedure.

I fail to see why pro-genocide supporters that seem to believe abortion is hardly more than the removal of a tape worm are upset by the wording of this bill. If all we’re doing is removing a parasitic organism, no more deserving of life than a malignant tumor, what’s wrong with making the patient aware of the procedure & potential risks & consequences? If one supports abortion & the misconceptions which are its physiological & philosophical base then one ought to be onboard with the wording of this legislation. Don’t you want the patient, whose rights you so ardently support, to be able to make an informed decision?

The pro-genocide group’s deranged & sociopathic scheming to portray pre-natal human being’s as hardly more than a wart as well as their furious concealment of the abortion procedure are reminiscent of the Nazi’s handling of genocide under Hitler’s tutelage. When Adolph Eichmann recognized soldiers demoralized by their culpability in mass murder he invented more efficient means of killing the Jews while at the same time concealing much of the nefariousness from its operatives thus allowing them to continue their gruesome duties with a clean conscience. The horrific madness perpetrated on the Jews & various other unfortunates was at once out of sight & out of mind.

The actions of those seeking to hide the reality of the genocide being exacted on those most vulnerable are hardly nobler than those of Eichmann & other mass murderers in human history. There is a reason some actions cause guilt. If abortion is simply the removal of a parasitic organism then being fully informed about it only serves to reassure & prepare one for the procedure. If, however, being faced with the reality of one’s choices causes anguish perhaps there is justification for it. If one’s planned course of action causes intense emotional turmoil perhaps that course should be reconsidered. The language in this portion of the bill is appropriate regardless of one’s point of view.

I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever. Thomas Jefferson

0

logicsound04 5 years ago

And when pressed, he totally abandons any attempt to pretend like he is arguing with facts and resorts to the same old sensationalist drone.

I'll take that as a "yeah, you were right".

Fool.

0

rtwngr 5 years ago

logicsound04 - You are complicit in murder.

0

logicsound04 5 years ago

Care to cite a source for your incorrect assertion that the fetus initiates labor? Because apparently WebMD doesn't know the first thing about biology either:

http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/labor-signs

"...No one knows what causes labor to start or when it will start, but several hormonal and physical changes may indicate the beginning of labor..."

Furthermore, you again stumble off-topic by comparing the issue we're talking about to living human beings. A comatose person, though lacking the ability to speak, or (as far as we know) perceive the world around them, was born. This is an important distinction in our culture--regardless of whether you believe a soul is instilled at conception or not, there is an innate difference between an organism that has exited the womb and one that has not.

I've made this case before, but it bears repeating, because it addresses this supposed contradiction between considering a fetus (that requires direct physical support from an "outside" source) and a living person who requires a feeding tube or respirator. Personhood, which begins at birth, is the key distinction here. A fetus can be measured by the probability that it will actually achieve personhood from conception. As the fetus matures and develops, it slowly approaches a probability of 1--1 (or 100%) being birth, as that is the point that personhood is guaranteed.

The beauty of this approach is that a fetus still has value in that it has the potential to become a person, and as development proceeds, that value increases because the likelihood of being born becomes higher and higher. Therefore, using this secular value system, we could reasonably agree that fetuses past a certain stage of development are too close to acheiving personhood to be aborted. This method also has the benefit of establishing that a living human being's rights take precedence over the fetus, which seems obvious to me--value the rights of the living over the rights of the potentially living--but is not obvious to people who have an anti-abortion agenda.

Now, regarding those who are comatose or require the assistance of a machine to even perform the basic functions of life, like breathing--they are exempt from this tiered value system because once personhood is acheived, it cannot be revoked regardless of how dependent a person becomes to stay alive. So no, having an abortion is not like removing a person from their life-support machines.

I have laid out a very clear and reasonable method for appropriately valuing human life at the various stages and states of development/being that is not based in religious ideology. Seeing as how our laws must remain secular in order to maintain the separation of church and state, this seems to me to be one of the few acceptable ways to address this issue.

If there are other ways that don't involve arguments centered around when a human gains a soul or the generalization of the word "life", then I am all ears.

0

Paul R Getto 5 years ago

"The finger does not contain the spirit and soul that makes man unique. However, the “fetus”, the precious unborn baby does all of that..." ====== At its heart, this is the essence of this sad and pointless argument. Legislation based on mythology (precious, unique, soul, etc.) is not going to work. We are part of creation, animals with clever minds and facile hands and a tendency towards violence against our brothers. All the rest is invention. Perhaps these inventions are well-intended, but using these beliefs as a basis for law and interference in the doctor-patient relationship is not good public policy.

0

rtwngr 5 years ago

logicsound - The baby DOES choose when to be born. Labor begins when a hormone from the baby is secreted signaling the mother. The baby has a heartbeat and brainwaves. If this were a person lying comatose in a hospital they would be deemed clinically "alive". You don't know the first thing about biology.

0

logicsound04 5 years ago

Did_I_say_that,

Your example assumes the conclusion of your logic, making it worthless as a persuasive argument.

You assign these traits to the fetus--like chosing when to be born or "controlling" the mother's body--in an attempt to make it seem like the fetus is an individual, when in reality, it is the mother's body that truly controls those things. A mother's body can and will naturally abort a fetus that becomes a threat to the survival of the "host" body, because biology understands that until that fetus becomes a living infant, it remains a dependent parasite, not a unique individual.

Regading the little snippet about a spirit and soul that you squeezed in there--that is a religious belief, and one that is not shared by all, so while that may be an acceptable reason to convince yourself that abortions are wrong, it can hardly be used to justify telling everyone how they must conduct themselves.

0

Benjamin Roberts 5 years ago

2349282 (Anonymous) says… "An embryo attached to the uterus of the woman isn't much different than a finger being attached to a hand of a woman."

Except that the finger does not take control of the woman's body and create its own special nutrition, blood, and filtration systems. The finger does not take control of the hormonal system and rearrange it to its own needs. The finger does not make unreasonable demands such as fried chicken and strawberry pie at 3:00 AM. The finger does not contain the spirit and soul that makes man unique. However, the "fetus", the precious unborn baby does all of that. And, when the "fetus" determines that it is time to be born - born it will be. Try that with your attached finger. In fact, take your pro-choice to the doctor and tell him that you want your perfectly healthy finger cut off and thrown away. That choice will not be honored by any credible doctor. Sorry, BR549 or whatever your number is, your analogy is flawed by the simple fact that the finger is an appendage while the unborn baby is a controlling parasitic human being - just like a teenager only smaller and still in the womb.

By the way, welcome to the forums.

0

2349282 5 years ago

“The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”

How is something that is attached to a womans body not part of her body?

How is something that isn't even fully formed "whole"? (A fetus isn't fully formed until after 20 weeks of pregnancy (That's when the fetus starts to be capable of feeling pain), 97% of abortions are performed by 15 weeks)

To the people that say a fetus isn't part of the womans body consider this:

The fertilized egg implants in the uterus (that means it attaches to the uterus). A finger that is attached to the hand of a woman is part of the woman. An embryo attached to the uterus of the woman isn't much different than a finger being attached to a hand of a woman. Both the embryo and the womans fingers are attached to the woman. Both the finger and the embryo get all their nutrients and oxygen from the woman. Just like the finger, the embryo would cease to function if it was removed from the woman. An embryo/fetus in the early parts of pregnancy has more in common with a finger, arm, leg, foot, or toe than it does with a born person.

0

rtwngr 5 years ago

Agnostick and Jersey_Girl - This is the paradigm in which I view abortion.

At the moment of conception a new and unique life begins. This is a medical fact and can be substantiated in any obstetric text purchased by a first year medical student.

This life is as alive in the womb as a toddler taking their first step outside of it. The brain is functioning, the heart is beating, and the autonomic reflexes of the nervous system are in full operation.

I do not feel that anyone, including the mother, has a right to end that life prematurely. No more than I believe anyone has a right to end the life of the aforementioned toddler prematurely.

If a mother in the ninth month of her pregnancy pleads that she mentally cannot bear the stress of the pregnancy any longer she currently has the right to end that pregnancy. That child is viable outside of the womb. People like George Tiller find a way to kill that child.

What if this same mother carries the child to term, delivers the baby, and then decides that she cannot mentally take the stress of raising this child. Does she have the right to throw this child off of a bridge into the river?

You see, to me, these are the same. Murder is murder. I do have the right to tell someone that, "NO! You cannot kill someone."

When you try to draw a distinction between pro choice and pro abortion that is just parsing words. Who, in their right mind, chooses killing?

0

madameX 5 years ago

Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…

Sure, 13-14-15-16 year olds may need education, but does an 18 or 19 year old not know the basics of prevention?


Not if she didn't learn them at 13 or 14 or 15 or 16. What, do you think knowledge suddenly blossoms, fully formed, in the brain when the age of consent is reached? Ill-informed kids who never learn the basics of birth control grow up to be ill-informed adults who don't know the basics of birth control. So yeah, there probably are 25 year olds who do need that education.

0

Jersey_Girl 5 years ago

rtwngr - my argument was that was that if you are going to judge PP based on the fact it was conceived by Margaret Sanger that is the same as judging children of rape and incest on their conception, not who they are and what they accomplish. I said nothing about "exterminating" them. My other argument was that if you are "pro-life", then you are being a hypocrite bombing clinics and killing doctors. I did not say abortion justifies anything. And I could give a flying doughnut about changing your warped little mind.

madman - thank you for a rational statement.

Prolifers - if you prefer to be called pro-lifers rather anti-abortionists, than respect our wish to be called pro-choice rather pro-abortion.

0

logicsound04 5 years ago

"we should all come together to reduce the number of abortions, through education or whatever."


Thank you, madman, for providing a serious and genuine pro-life perspective. And while I can understand having to face evidence may influence a pregnant woman's decision, at some point you must make the information available, but leave it up to the individual to seek it out. I don't think forcing a doctor to tell a patient a specific thing is the answer to the problem. I think that approach incorrectly assumes that a doctor won't be fully honest with his patient regarding a very serious medical procedure.

0

logicsound04 5 years ago

"The pro-choice commenter believes that “pro-abortion” and “child killing” are euphemisms, or inoffensive expressions, for something unpleasant or offensive. Further, “pro-life” is considered a euphemism. Does that mean that life is considered offensive?"


Yes, euphemisms traditionally are a subtle manipulation of language to make an offensive idea seem less unpleasant. Euphemisms are employed because the user doesn't want an inflammatory concept to produce inflamed emotions.

HOWEVER, the anti-abortion movement thrives on using offensive images and concepts to make it's point--therefore, they commonly employe inverted euphemisms, or language that is manipulated to produce MORE offensive imagery than the literal term would produce. I apologize if I'm missing the correct terminology for the technique, but anyone with a brain (or lacking a motive to obfuscate) can see that my point--that the anti-abortion crowd uses carefully chosen language designed to produce an effect rather than more literally accurate language--still holds true.

And for the record--"pro-life" fits the literal definition of euphemism, as it is a positive, inoffensive term that is substituted for the underlying reality of the anti-abortion movement: anti-choice.

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

"Don't begin to lecture anybody on ignorance when you say there is no such thing as a pro abortion side. The “choice” we are talking about is abortion. Why don't you like the term pro abortion? What is wrong with abortion that you feel the need to obfuscate the truth?"


Show me one person who is ADVOCATING the practice of abortion, and I will withdraw my point that there is no pro-abortion side.

I already explained why "pro-abortion" is a misnomer. No one who is advocating for an individual's right to choose is promoting abortion as the best option. In fact, most pro-choice advocates will tell you that they personally don't like the practice and feel that it should be minimized as much as possible. Far from being pro-abortion, they are anti-abortion, but have a far stronger conviction to a person's right to choose the medical acts that are performed on their own body. They also understand that writing a law is a non-effective method to reduce abortions compared to education and contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

As I have already addressed, pro-choice is the most literally-correct term regarding a movement that is predicated upon defending a person's right to choose. Let me say that again, though I doubt it will have any effect--defending a person's right to choose, not promoting abortion as the best option.

0

madman 5 years ago

I myself (a mother) live my life pro-life but, understand that not everyone has my values or beliefs and think everyone should be able to make there own choice. I am not sure I agree or disagree with the new language but, I do think that is shouldn't matter if you are pro-life or pro-choice, we should all come together to reduce the number of abortions, through education or whatever.

I do think more disclosure (education) should happen with women at the time of an abortion. (Although I really don't know what they do now when a women is making that decision) When I was in high school my friend was pregnant with her boyfriend's child. She had an abortion and didn't think much about. When she later started her own family she was torn up when she had a sonogram and after just a few weeks and could see the baby (fetus) and the heartbeat. It made her think a lot about the decision she made in high school and she still has issues with it. I think it could be argued without having to face that evidence, a women could down play the situation make it less of a big deal then it might really be to them (now or later). Just like when women are pregnant and deny it for 9 months and show up in hospital and are suprised they are having a baby.

0

Tom Shewmon 5 years ago

Do 20-21-22-23-24 year old women really need sex education? They don't know how to have sex and not become pregnant?

Sure, 13-14-15-16 year olds may need education, but does an 18 or 19 year old not know the basics of prevention?

The fact of the matter is most abortions are being done by women who full well know what the deal is, ie, how to not get pregnant.

That good old word: "choice"----that's exactly what it is, these women choose to not care, becuase they figure they can just go visit the Dr. Tillers around the country.

0

Agnostick 5 years ago

As to the issue of abortion, my logical, straightforward, ironclad approach remains unaltered:

The vast majority of abortions are the result of unwanted pregnancies. Reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and the number of all abortions--first trimester, second trimester, third trimester--will go down. How? Sex education, promotion of abstinence, parental involvement, and better access to birth control, for when all the abstinence training falls through (and there's ample proof that it does fail from time to time).

Tiller runs a business, plain and simple. He exists to serve that "market" of unwanted pregnancies. Drive those numbers down low enough, and he'll have to close up shop, because there won't be enough paying customers to keep the doors open. No amount of politicking can accomplish that.

Now... feel free to get yer rocks off wth more "abortion porn."

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

Agnostick 5 years ago

rtwngr (Anonymous) says…

I have a relevant point to add. -

Do any of you arguing the pro abortion side understand how an abortion procedure takes place? One method is where a child (yes it is a child) is dismembered in the womb and removed with a suction device. This (we'll use your terminology here) mass of tissue has a fully developed nervous system and has had since its first heart beat. This is medical fact! That means the little “mass of tissue” can feel it when it is being ripped limb from limb. Anyone up for description of a saline abortion?


rtwngr...

Big difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion." Somebody who is "pro-abortion" wants every pregnancy aborted. That is not the case, and you know it. "Pro choice" means that we believe that the decision to abort a pregnancy resides solely between a woman and her doctor. No government or activist intervention, please.

If you want to offer up a detailed description of a saline abortion, be my guest. You and I both know that you're really not doing it to "save babies"; rather, you're doing it to satisfy your own prurient cravings. For people like you, talking and writing about abortion serves the same purpose that pornography serves to a sex addict... that a blast of cocaine does to a drug addict. You'll get a big surge of dopamine in your pathologically-altered brain, like an alcoholic taking a big swig of scotch, or a gambler rolling the dice. Your asking other people to do it is pointless, because you'll do it anyway. It's the nature of your craving.

What I would suggest to you, though, is a little experiment...

Rather than typing it (or, more likely, copy/pasting it) into your web browser... try putting it into a text editor first, like Notepad or WordPad or even MS Word. Put it down, read it, get that big rush... and then walk away for a few minutes. Once the "high" has worn off for you, come back and see if you really needed to actually post that description, or if it was just going through the motions that satisfied your craving. Of course, you may need to post it, to shock and offend others, like one of those exhibitionists who flashes people, and gets off on seeing the shocked expressions and reactions of their victims.

[more]

0

rtwngr 5 years ago

Jersey_Girl - Let me get this straight so that I understand your convoluted arguments.

1) We should exterminate the children of pedophile fathers because they are despicable fathers and their children have no right to live as a result? What about the children not in the womb? Shall we kill the ones that are a little further along the life timeline?

2) Abortion rights the wrongs of the clinic bombings. Killing children in the womb and the right to do so is justice for the aforementioned bombings?

Well you changed my mind with those talking points.

0

rtwngr 5 years ago

logicsound - Don't begin to lecture anybody on ignorance when you say there is no such thing as a pro abortion side. The "choice" we are talking about is abortion. Why don't you like the term pro abortion? What is wrong with abortion that you feel the need to obfuscate the truth? I'll tell you why you call it pro choice. It is because deep down in your inner being you know that abortions are about the taking of human lives. Your problem is you do not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for those that cannot defend themselves. The most defenseless of all is the unborn.

0

Benjamin Roberts 5 years ago

A "pro-choice" commenter says... "...Between the constant use of euphemisms (pro-life, pro-abortion, child killing)..."

Euphemism: the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant...

The pro-choice commenter believes that “pro-abortion” and “child killing” are euphemisms, or inoffensive expressions, for something unpleasant or offensive. Further, “pro-life” is considered a euphemism. Does that mean that life is considered offensive?

Perhaps this was a Freudian slip?

The truth is that “pro-choice” is a euphemism for one who supports abortion; a person that is “pro-abortion”. Pro-choice is considered less offensive than pro-abortion. That is why those in favor of (Pro) abortion prefer to be called pro-choice.

0

Jersey_Girl 5 years ago

logicsound - don't forget the bombing of clinics and killings of abortion providers by "pro-lifers". How are those actions pro-life?

0

Jersey_Girl 5 years ago

For those of you who think Planned Parenthood is evil because it was conceived by Margaret Sanger, what do you think that makes a child of rape or incest? If PP is evil because its parent is evil, then children of rape and incest must be evil.

0

logicsound04 5 years ago

"Do any of you arguing the pro abortion side"


How can such an ignorant point be relevant? There is no such thing as the "pro-abortion" side.

What is so hard to understand about "pro-choice"? Why do all anti-abortion advocates have such a mental hangup with that wording?

Pro (in favor of)

Choice (the mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them for action)

For those of you that are having trouble following along, that means those of us who consider ourselves pro-choice are in favor of an individual's right to conduct their own mental process, judging the merits/pitfalls of multiple options and selecting one.

Frankly, I don't care if someone chooses an abortion or chooses to carry a fetus to term. I merely care that they have the right to make that decision for themselves.

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

"That means the little “mass of tissue” can feel it when it is being ripped limb from limb."


Really? So perhaps you can describe to the rest of us how it felt when you were born, since you had a fully-functioning nervous system and could feel everything that was happening around you.

Between the constant use of euphemisms (pro-life, pro-abortion, child killing) and the constant stream of informational manipulation (fetus can feel an abortion, for example), the anti-abortion movement is becoming a joke. The language used is really only designed for people who already agree with the cause, so I don't know who anyone thinks they are fooling.

0

karrin 5 years ago

I appreciate the statements of Sen. Francisco & Sen. Haley. Too many of our pro-choice legislators have forgotten how to stand up & speak out against the bullies who seem to think that women are not "whole, separate & unique human beings" that are capable of making choices that they feel is in the best interests for themselves, their families & their personal health.

And to all those that rant on here about the evils of Planned Parenthood...your logic completely escapes me. The majority of Planned Parenthoods funding goes toward prevention of unwanted pregnancies. If you take away access to affordable birth control, it will cause more abortions. This illustrates the core issue...it is about control of women's independent, reproductive decision making. Keep Abortion Legal!!

0

KansasVoter 5 years ago

Nobody cares how an abortion takes place. If a woman wants to abort her embryo or fetus, she will. If a woman doesn't agree with abortion, she won't have one. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Why don't you anti-abortion kooks do something productive with your time instead of continuing to beat this dead horse?

0

rtwngr 5 years ago

I have a relevant point to add. -

Do any of you arguing the pro abortion side understand how an abortion procedure takes place? One method is where a child (yes it is a child) is dismembered in the womb and removed with a suction device. This (we'll use your terminology here) mass of tissue has a fully developed nervous system and has had since its first heart beat. This is medical fact! That means the little "mass of tissue" can feel it when it is being ripped limb from limb. Anyone up for description of a saline abortion?

0

viewfromahill 5 years ago

For those given and/or susceptible to linguistic manipulation, what more "callous overreach" than that of the hand raking a developing human being from existence?

0

Polly_Gomer 5 years ago

Mercy (Anonymous) says… "cait48 - human being: Until the fetus is born and survives outside the womb it is not a human being. It's a “potential” human being but it's not a human being yet. That's like calling a fertilized chicken egg a “chicken”. This sentence is nothing but radical right-to-life rhetoric designed to guilt trip."

Nothing wrong there, looks like cait48 pretty much called it as it is.

"...if a hen sat on a fertilized egg for 5 days and we cracked it open and fried it, would you eat it? Even if you don't like eggs, just think about it - would you eat it? What about after 10 days? Would you still eat it? What about after 15 days of gestation? Would you eat it? How about after 20 days?"

No, but if I didn't want the chick, I'd feed it to my cat.

0

viewfromahill 5 years ago

"... a callous overreach by anti-abortionists."

(Orwell sooooo called this one.)

0

logicsound04 5 years ago

It cracks me up when someone says something you can't refute, Pelosi_Boy.

It's like your mental computer reboots and you go back to repeating your same tired old garbage.

0

Mercy 5 years ago

Since SB 218 refers to late term and partial-birth abortions, we'll start here at 16 to 25 weeks after fertilization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#16... Eyebrows, eyelashes, fingernails, and toenails appear.

The woman will be informed IN WRITING that “The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.” She can read it or not.

If the woman is in too much mental anguish as Sen. Francisco suggests, then she may not read the information given to her.

If you visited the site on candling regarding chicks, then don't you think a woman seeking abortion should have similar information concerning the human life within her? Some of the chicks may die - naturally. If a baby has anencephaly, they probably won't survive the birth. Why not just let nature take its course? An abortion may cause the woman physical pain and harm in addition to her mental anguish.

0

grammaddy 5 years ago

We're not pro-abortion, we're pro-choice, idiots. Get it right.

0

Satirical 5 years ago

Some slave owners found it easier to own slaves when they rationalized that people from African were something less than human. The pro-abortion groups does the same thing when they claim it isn't a "human," it is a "fetus" (as if it can't be both). Simply a justification which makes terminating a life a little easier.

0

Tom Shewmon 5 years ago

Logic, I don't know what to tell you. Sanger is the founder. We can't change that history. She was what she was. I wish I could tell you otherwise. I don't know, logicsound, maybe she was just crazier than an sh!thouse rat. Honestly, I wouldn't want this out in the mainstream either---that she was the founder.

http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

Planned Parenthood's site doesn't say a whole lot about her, to noone's amazement. Just some fun trivia about 'Margaret Sangers World:1916".

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/issues-action/other/articles/sanger-1916-9974.htm

0

Slowponder 5 years ago

One has to find as quaint the reliance of the hard-driving right on this proposed notice as being so persuasive to change the minds. Aducco, ergo sum.

0

logicsound04 5 years ago

"Other than the obvious, that the Beetle is still around today, as are the underpinnings of the pro-abortion agenda, based on the earlier works of Margaret Sanger. Pro-abortionists need to research something before they strongly endorse/agree with it. Shameful."


Are you stupid? Or do you just play a stupid person on the internet?

1) The fact that the Beetle (and pro-choice movement) is still around today has absolutely nothing to do with my point. Last time you were discussing the pros/cons of buying a Volkswagen, how many times did the fact that the company was originally created to help supply and fund Hitler's war machine come up? If your answer is more than "zero", then you are either insane or a liar--maybe both. Similarly, Margaret Sanger's ill-conceived opinions about eugenics and the like have NOTHING to do with current fight for women's right to decide what medical procedures happen to their bodies.

2) What is the "pro-abortion" movement?

3) You are fool if you honestly believe anything I said "endorsed" Sanger. An intelligent person could understand the difference between "endorsing" something and admitting to the facts, that Margaret Sanger started Planned Parenthood.

But now, looking back at my post, I realize that my first two questions were uncalled for. I apologize.

I shouldn't be wasting your time with pointless questions--it doesn't matter whether your stupid or just playing a part. Either way, trying to have a discussion with you is a waste of time.

0

Tom Shewmon 5 years ago

Why does the left, as illustrated a few posts above, have to resort to common barnyard animals to compare and contrast while defending human/social issues, such as homosexuality or abortion? It's a bit embarassing, isn't it?

0

Jersey_Girl 5 years ago

igby (Anonymous) says…

So, if the sperms the personal property of the male donor and his sperm and DNA is the sole contributor to the medical condition of the female. Then the owner of the personal property has some resort to property right even if the host or female has rights over her own body. If she excepted this conservator-ship willing and without force, having full knowledge of the risk. LOL.

igby - I haven't been here enough to know your politics even though I recognize your name, so I don't know what you mean by adding "LOL" at the end. Since I don't know, I'm going to with that you meant the post and respond. If the man gave this material to the woman and expected her to act as conservator, he is, by law, giving her legal control of said material. If he did not expect her to act as conservator, then I would think it was given to her to do as she wishes as I truly doubt he wants it back. Either way, he has given it to her and given her the legal control over it.

0

Agnostick 5 years ago

Oh, before I forget...

Mercy... regarding the issue of the abortion bill at hand... the issue that we're actually discussing...

Did you have a relevant point to add...?

--Ag

0

Agnostick 5 years ago

Mercy, you raise some interesting points. A chicken egg isn't fit for human consumption after a hen has sat on it and 'incubated" it for 20 days... or 10 days... or even 5 days.

On the other hand, a chicken egg that has been incubated only 5 or 10 days isn't ready to crack out of its shell and walk around, either... is it?

Mercy, you've brought to light (hey, a pun!) the importance of candling. If you look at the article below, there are more links at the bottom that lead to some very cool pictures and so forth about chicken egg candling:

The bottom link, "Candling Pictures," offers several pictures of eggs that, for one reason or another, will not hatch. They're not fit to eat, they're not fit to hatch... only thing you can do with them is toss 'em out! Candling helps egg producers offer up only the best eggs to the supermarket... and helps chicken producers make sure that only the best eggs go into the incubator for hatching.

You could almost think of candling as a kind of "poultry sonogram."

Again, interesting information... and thanks! :)

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

beatrice 5 years ago

Michael Schuttloffel, executive director of the Kansas Catholic Conference, said, "Women should be fully informed, they should be given medically accurate information as they would be in the case of any other medical procedure.”

This, coming from the same people who wish to block sex education in schools and the distribution of condoms to those who would want them. Talk about putting the cart before the horse. Silly conservatives.

0

shockchalk 5 years ago

Regardless of your feeling about abortion, this line in the text makes perfect sense. A woman that wants to have an abortion won't change her mind after hearing this sentance. And any woman who does change her mind probably DID need to hear that sentance.

0

Mercy 5 years ago

cait48 - human being: Until the fetus is born and survives outside the womb it is not a human being. It's a “potential” human being but it's not a human being yet. That's like calling a fertilized chicken egg a “chicken”. This sentence is nothing but radical right-to-life rhetoric designed to guilt trip.

cait48, if a hen sat on a fertilized egg for 5 days and we cracked it open and fried it, would you eat it? Even if you don't like eggs, just think about it - would you eat it? What about after 10 days? Would you still eat it? What about after 15 days of gestation? Would you eat it? How about after 20 days?

If you'd like to google "gestation on stages chicken egg" before you answer those questions, go ahead. That's what this bill would do.

If it isn't a human being, then why would anyone feel guilty? They have a choice to look at the sonogram. If they don't want to feel guilty, then they shouldn't look.

0

Tom Shewmon 5 years ago

"Probably about as much as Nazi Germany has to do with a discussion about modern-day automobile manufacturers (seeing as how Volkswagen arose from the production of the Beetle as an auto for the Nazi war machine)." --(il)logicsound04

Other than the obvious, that the Beetle is still around today, as are the underpinnings of the pro-abortion agenda, based on the earlier works of Margaret Sanger. Pro-abortionists need to research something before they strongly endorse/agree with it. Shameful.

0

igby 5 years ago

The cost too society of this contribution for conservator-ship is great and the outcome of this civil union gives birth to a massive carbon footprint that if left too fester in society, grows into future pollution and a burden on city, state and federal governments. Furthermore, the history of medical mutations are evident in almost all specimens left to live as a result of this union. These mutants are proven to be burdensome to the taxpayer. They require special needs such as extensive health care and social supervision to function in society.

To create such a burden on society should be illegal and restricted by the strictest of laws. If both parties are indigent and ill supported then the law breakers should be incarcerated so the crime can not be committed again in the future. Lol.

All violations should be restricted and expunged.

0

Leslie Swearingen 5 years ago

I considered by baby to be fully human from the moment of conception. But, I am not an educated person, so I don't have the benefit of all that book learning. If a woman breaks the law, just dump that law. Good, we could do that with every law that people break. I am thankful I don't have an education so I could come up with these wonderful ideas.

0

igby 5 years ago

So, if the sperms the personal property of the male donor and his sperm and DNA is the sole contributor to the medical condition of the female. Then the owner of the personal property has some resort to property right even if the host or female has rights over her own body. If she excepted this conservator-ship willing and without force, having full knowledge of the risk. LOL.

0

Ray Parker 5 years ago

Erica Denise Kelly, 22, of Waxhaw, NC pleaded not guilty Friday to murdering her born-alive newborn daughter in February, and was denied bond. The tiny body was found abandoned near a garbage pile by neighbors. Police are still seeking the infant’s father. Safe haven laws enacted in every state for the legalized safe abandonment of newborns will make leniency for such a capital crime unthinkable.


The tiny, headless body of a baby boy, gestation age 4 to 5 months, was dumped in a yard in Oxford, MS. This is likely an illegal post-viable abortion, which would explain the beheading and illegal dumping of the body. An autopsy may determine evidence of that crime, if there is not too much decomposition. The only abortion mill in Mississippi is in Jackson, and not licensed to commit abortions past 12 weeks gestation. Even if this were a miscarriage or stillbirth, the desecration and illegal discarding of the infant’s remains is a felony crime, and police are investigating.


Federal Way, WA police say a 14-year-old girl who gave live birth to a baby in her bedroom on Thursday intentionally killed the newborn girl. Police on Friday arrested the teenager and planned to book her into the King County Juvenile Detention Center on investigation of second-degree murder. The baby's father, Leonel Guzman-Jacobo, 20, was booked into King County Jail on investigation of statutory, or second-degree, rape, because the adult man impregnated the girl when she was 13. The girl had concealed her pregnancy from her family and students at her local middle school, so her family members were shocked to find the murdered infant in her bed.


Do these news items give anyone an inkling about what is happening to respect for the value and dignity of human life in pro-abortion America?

0

KLATTU 5 years ago

Regular folks on either side aren't going to change their minds. Instead of wasting your time bickering with LJW comment section numbskulls take a few moments to bitch at your elected officials. They have a longstanding history of leaning whichever way the wind blows.

0

logicsound04 5 years ago

Nice try Did_I_say_that.

First of all, when the framers wrote "Men are created equally", they DIDN'T intend to include women, who were treated as property and not allowed to vote. It took additional amendments to definitively establish the equal standing of women. So, when we get an amendment to the Constitution declaring fetuses and living human beings to be equal, then we can talk.

Second of all, ignoring the first point, "men" or "man" is often used to refer to the whole of humanity--man, woman, and child. It is not, however, typically used in reference to the unborn, except by those such as yourself, in an attempt to sharpen your ideological axe.

0

RonBurgandy 5 years ago

It is so infuriating that people who oppose abortion refer to pro-choice people as "pro-abortion." I wonder if they all sit around and just picture pro-choice people as having abortion parties and encouraging every pregnant woman to get an abortion.

If you want to reduce the amount of abortions, reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies. This means sex education people. It means you might have to talk to your kids about sex, as well as, allowing the schools to properly educate young people as to how to prevent pregnancy. So many people think this is just going to make kids want to have more sex, which is ludicrous.

I am pro-choice. And I would try to talk someone out of getting an abortion. But I would never result to trying to guilt them into it. It is not my body, it is not my choice what to do with it. It is not for me to say.

This law is a waste of time, one for the fact that it will be overturned in the courts, two because this is not what our state legislaturers whould be working on right now. They should be focused on what will actually benefit current Kansans.

0

Benjamin Roberts 5 years ago

rooster (Anonymous) says… "Please read the sentance [sic] carefully. “Men are created equally”. Since when is a fetus a man/woman? It's a fetus. It's not a man, woman, or child yet."

That is an illogical conclusion, rooster. Using that argument we could ask, "Since when is a woman a man?" Hence, women are not created equal and should not be allowed to make such important decisions.

There is no evidence that the framers could have envisioned a time when an unborn baby would not be protected as an equal. Try again.

0

logicsound04 5 years ago

"do a look up on Sanger and read about her. I'll let you do the leg-work, I've posted it numerous times on this award-winning open-reader forum."


Yes, Sanger founded Planned Parenthood. So what? And just to dispel the silly notion that pro-choice advocates have the desire to hide her role, here you go:

But, since we're on the topic, what on Earth does Margaret Sanger have to do with the modern debate on abortion and the right to choose?

Probably about as much as Nazi Germany has to do with a discussion about modern-day automobile manufacturers (seeing as how Volkswagen arose from the production of the Beetle as an auto for the Nazi war machine).

The answer, in both situations, is nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Unless your motive is to manipulate facts to support your ideology.

0

Agnostick 5 years ago

duplenty (Anonymous) says…

right-thinker, Lib, and the rest: I guess you missed the memo:

Your side has lost.

Time to come out of the basement and find a more productive existence.

“Dobson concedes that the far right has ‘lost’ the culture war.”


... which really isn't that much different from Don Quixote calling a press conference to announce, "The windmills have beaten us--we lost the war."

--Ag

0

Finding_Uranus 5 years ago

Nancy, looks like the pro-choice folks don't like your exposing who started PP. Are they denying who this woman was? Seems like it. The first time I ever read some Sanger quotes a few years ago, I had to check a little deeper, thinking they were internet lies, but afraid not so. You'd think one of Hitler's "scientists" would have stated these things, not Sanger.

0

bwebcorp 5 years ago

It's amazing at how many of these right to lifers have lost all sense of memory. Does any of them remember the days of young girls equipped with close hangers. It's like the argument teens will never have sex. News flash women will seek out an abortion legal or not. So what's the plan make abortion illegal and then start throwing 14,15,18,30 year girls into the pen for murder. Because that is the claim correct? That an abortion is murder. Women need a professional outlet to have these services done, not be left to there own. Sorry that's really, not spaceman will save us all if we just believe.

0

duplenty 5 years ago

right-thinker, Lib, and the rest: I guess you missed the memo:

Your side has lost.

Time to come out of the basement and find a more productive existence.

"Dobson concedes that the far right has ‘lost’ the culture war."

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/12/dobson-defeated/

0

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

Agnostick sometimes you and I think so much alike it's scary.

0

Machiavelli_mania 5 years ago

Abortion should be made medically-safe for anyone at any time whenever, if ever she so chooses. There should be no restrictions on reproductive rights for any reason whatsoever.

0

Agnostick 5 years ago

Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (right_thinker) says…

"grammaddy, do a look up on Sanger and read about her. I'll let you do the leg-work, I've posted it numerous times on this award-winning open-reader forum.

"It's this easy though if you don't want to: Margaret Sanger is the founder of PP. Margaret Sanger was a socialist, eugenist, racist and bigot. See how easy that is?!"


Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. One of them, Sally Hemmings, bore several children by Jefferson.

So, the author of the Declaration of independence was a racist, bigot, and rapist. True? Not to mention the fact that all those children of his were born out of wedlock, since Jefferson never bothered to marry Hemmings. True?

For that matter, George Washington was also a slave owner:

So, I guess that makes him a racist and bigot, as well.

Means we're still a nation of bigots and racists, doesn't it?

Like to twist those words around, don't you, right_thinker?

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

I get so damned tired of hearing about Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. In no way does PP have an agenda of "socialism, eugenics, racism and bigotry". Yes Sanger founded PP and the US was founded by radical extremists that would be jailed for life today. (gasp! Let me hold my heart!) Thomas Paine was an anarchist and Benjamin Franklin did a helluva lot more than fly kites. Oh and by the way: Santa Claus wears a red suit,he's a communist. Long hair and a beard,must be a pacifist. What's in the pipe that he's smoking? Mr.Claus sneaks in your house at night. He must be a dope fiend to put you uptight. (Courtesy of Arlo Guthrie)

0

grammaddy 5 years ago

And by the way, I'm not "pro-abortion", I'm pro-choice.Unless you have a uterus, shut up and go away.

0

Tom Shewmon 5 years ago

grammaddy, do a look up on Sanger and read about her. I'll let you do the leg-work, I've posted it numerous times on this award-winning open-reader forum.

It's this easy though if you don't want to: Margaret Sanger is the founder of PP. Margaret Sanger was a socialist, eugenist, racist and bigot. See how easy that is?!

0

grammaddy 5 years ago

Nancy-tom,Why is it that everyone who disagrees with you is a zealot trying to spread their own propaganda.Exactly where do socialism, eugenics, racism and bigotry come into play in a "freedom of choice" issue. Sounds like you're the one with the propaganda issues.

0

Left_handed 5 years ago

Roe versus Wade settled this issue? Just like the Dred Scott ruling settled slavery.

0

tjhoops69 5 years ago

Ag- never say never........

0

Tom Shewmon 5 years ago

Left-leaning journalists such as Scott Rothschild and the pro-abortion zealots don't take kindly to this sort of verbage on abortion. It undermines alot of their propaganda efforts over the past few decades. By no means is the truth what they seek. What they seek is just satisfying a radical agenda rooted in socialism, eugenics, racism and bigotry, compliments of Planned Parenthood and their beloved founder, Margaret Sanger.

0

Agnostick 5 years ago

To further build on cait48's excellent points: Every medical situation is different. If the fetus is malformed due to something like anencephaly, and is missing one or more vital organs... and has no chance of surviving outside the womb... then how can a physician honestly say that is is a “whole, separate, unique, living human being?”

It may be tomorrow, it may be five years from now... but eventually, we'll have a situation in which this law will essentially force a doctor to lie to a woman about the true nature of the developing fetus. Despite everything that a sonogram, amneocentesis and other tests might show, the language of this bill would force the doctor into telling a lie. This, I believe, would open up the physician and the State of Kansas, both, to massive malpractice litigation.

There's no way this thing will survive a test in the courts. No way.

--Ag

0

Liberty_One 5 years ago

OldEnuf--what part of the Constitution was changed to overruled Plessy v. Ferguson?

0

Agnostick 5 years ago

cait48, rooster, very good posts from the both of you!

OldEnuf: Getting involved "today" would mean working to encourage better sex education programs, decision-making skills, and increasing access to birth control; in other words, things that would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that lead to late-term abortions. It's pretty hard to have an abortion without being pregnant to begin with, don't you think?

But activists like STRS, Marion, Lib, and all the others that catterwall about these things would find that kind of work boring, and it is, compared to the news coverage, camera lenses, blood-soaked pageantry and street-theater melodrama that goes along with getting involved "tomorrow," as you say.

I'm convinced that these activists are in this to stroke their own "egos," and they've fetishized the whole process, including the pictures and videos they like to parade around with. It's an ego trip, a hobby, nothing more.

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

tjhoops69 5 years ago

Roe v Wade is not a federal law, first of all, it was a civil action. If Roe v wade were to be repelled, it would send it back to the states to decide...this is why the pro-choice people fight this, so that their state cant decide, I guess they dont trust those who are in office in their states to decide!

0

OldEnuf2BYurDad 5 years ago

I'm as anti-abortion as they come, but the truth is that it's going to take a constitutional change to roll back Roe. Even the most ardently conservative judges won't tough Roe. As Roberts put it: "it's established law", meaning it's not changing. Sad, but true.

Conservatives: quit complaining after the horse is out of the barn. Get involved today, not tomorrow.

0

KansasVoter 5 years ago

"If a girl or woman later believes her late-term abortion was illegal, she, her husband or parents could sue the doctor who performed the abortion for damages under the measure."

Give me a break. I thought that republicans were supposed to be against frivolous lawsuits? She, her husband, or parents could sue? What about boyfriends? What about sperm donors? What about rapists? Don't they have rights? That would be hilarious if it wasn't so damned serious. You anti-choice kooks scare me.

0

tjhoops69 5 years ago

I say again, its not about a womans right, or anything else, its about the almighty dollar..bottom line, the abortion industry is a multi billion dollar industry, so it doesnt matter if the left is for it and the right isnt, the fact remains that as long as someone can get paid to do preform one, then they will be legal, but make no mistake, these abortions providers could care less about these women, in fact....they wont preform one unless they have cash in hand, so lets just stop pretending that its all about a womans right and no need to argue if its a "real" baby, or not a real baby, cause its about the man and the money! And its not about a woman life being in jeopardy either, because again, no cash, no ripping your uterus out!

0

dweezil222 5 years ago

Let me amend that slightly. I don't think the legislature should draw such lines when doing so is in contravention of established public policy.

0

kugrad 5 years ago

Where good people disagree the government should not decide. This is a private matter between a woman, her family, her physician, and perhaps her pastor.

How is an undeveloped child "whole?"

I oppose abortion, but I don't believe that allows me to choose for everyone else, nor to gang up with others who feel as I do and impose my will on others.

0

dweezil222 5 years ago

I don't think the legislature should be in the business of drawing such lines when medical experts reasonably differ on such points.

0

logicsound04 5 years ago

"The “right to life” was such a “radical” idea that our founding fathers based our independence upon it."


Semantics games, pure and simple.

Hell, this argument is the entire reason the anti-abortion movement even uses the "right to life" euphemism, because it lends false credibility to the position.

The truth of the matter is that the founding fathers were talking about living, breathing, human beings, not potential human beings. No matter how tempting it is to equate a fetus and a born human, it is a false comparison. The anti-abortion movement wants to pretend like pregnancy and birth are synonymous, but the reality is that pregnancies are terminated naturally all the time.

For this reason, we must make a distinction between existing human beings and potential human beings, no matter how close to existence those potential human beings may be. They have no more "right" to life than a sperm has a "right" to fertilize the egg, or the egg has a "right" to attach to the uterine wall.

0

Jersey_Girl 5 years ago

Agree with Cait48.

lawthing - I imagine it is a rare occurance that a woman rushes from getting the results of the pregnancy test straight to an abortion clinic. Rest assured, when she makes the trip to the clinic, unless she is being coerced by parents or father of the baby, it will be well thought out.

0

Chris Golledge 5 years ago

Cait48 has it.

Did_I, if you want to argue with the conclusion, you should address the supporting arguments. You haven't.

0

rooster 5 years ago

did_i_say_that:

Please read the sentance carefully. "Men are created equally".

Since when is a fetus a man/woman? It's a fetus. It's not a man, woman, or child yet.

0

Benjamin Roberts 5 years ago

cait48 (Anonymous) says… "...radical right-to-life rhetoric designed to guilt trip."

It is quite sad that cait48 sees one's right to life as radical rhetoric. The "right to life" was such a "radical" idea that our founding fathers based our independence upon it.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - The second sentence of The Declaration of Independence

0

lawthing 5 years ago

Whats the hurry? The final decision is final, no going back.

There is nothing wrong with waiting a few days.

It is for the mental health of the mother. When she does it, she can rest assured it was well thought out, and she did the right thing. No regrets!

0

UfoPilot 5 years ago

Then how about the Constitutional argument.?.? Where in the entire body of the constitution does it allow for abortion legislation that protects the life of an unborn child? What article or amendment do you want to site?

Amendment 10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

0

Confrontation 5 years ago

The Catholics should shut up and stick to preaching to their own kind. There are more Catholic women having abortions than any other religious group.

0

rooster 5 years ago

Wow, Broke fiscally and bailed out by the federal gov't and all we can work on is abortion and coal....

Only when this state is financially sound should our legislators be debating abortion and coal.

And to all that will state the coal issue is a fiscal one, remember after a plant is built it will only employ about 200 people.

0

parrotuya 5 years ago

A fetus is an extension of a the mother. Anti-abortion wackos should mind their own beeswax and but out of the private lives of others.

0

Ray Parker 5 years ago

We will enforce informed consent. We will enforce the truth, and the whole truth, in Kansas abortion mills. We will have justice for mothers and their families being abused, defrauded, and exploited in abortion mills. And when most mothers in abortion mills decline abortions, when faced with good sonograms and the truth about their intended contract killing victims, we will have no more abortion mills operating in Kansas.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 5 years ago

You mean a developing child has its own DNA? I didn't read that in any of the Planned Parenthood propaganda.

0

Liberty_One 5 years ago

preebo (Anonymous) says…

"Then how about the Constitutional argument.?.? Where in the entire body of the constitution does it allow for abortion legislation that protects the life of an unborn child? What article or amendment do you want to site?"

The Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

0

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

Here's my problem with the proposed legislation and it's language. I'll take it apart step by step. The abortion will terminate the life of a whole:This is not always true, especially in cases of anencephaly or where the fetus is missing another vital organ. separate:This too is not true. Up until the time that a fetus can survive outside the womb it is not "separate". It is dependent on the host that supports it. unique, living: So are one celled organisms. human being: Until the fetus is born and survives outside the womb it is not a human being. It's a "potential" human being but it's not a human being yet. That's like calling a fertilized chicken egg a "chicken". This sentence is nothing but radical right-to-life rhetoric designed to guilt trip.

0

preebo 5 years ago

"Sorry grammaddy, but the whole “it's my body” argument goes up in smoke with all the anti-drug laws."

Then how about the Constitutional argument.?.? Where in the entire body of the constitution does it allow for abortion legislation that protects the life of an unborn child? What article or amendment do you want to site?

0

tjhoops69 5 years ago

"And those of you without a uterus do not get to make decisions for mine." Ahhh but they do! Pro-choicers are not fighting for your RIGHTS....common...you cant be that stupid! Your right, choice won out in the 70's when men found that they could make a $hit load of money ripping out ones uterus and calling it an abortion! And again you are right...its not going anywhere because "MEN" will not allow it too, as its a billion dollar industry, and Abortion doctors are not going to give up that kindof income. So we as a society, will allow the Tillers of the world, who, could care less about a woman or her rights...to continue to make money off the wombs of women everywhere! So no worries Grammaddy...its here to stay!

0

grammaddy 5 years ago

Sorry Pooter, that's my body, too. It's still a colossal waste of time and money. This fight has been fought all of my life. Choice won out in the 70's. What has changed? Like I said before...

0

pooter 5 years ago

Sorry grammaddy, but the whole "it's my body" argument goes up in smoke with all the anti-drug laws.

*

0

tumbilweed 5 years ago

davidsmom,

Just the simple fact that you believe that there exists an absolute truth is in itself misleading.

Nothing can be proven absolutely.

0

grammaddy 5 years ago

Why screw with abortion at all??!! What a colossal waste of time and money. It's been legal since the 70's AND it's not goin anywhere. If you don't believe in it , for God's sake don't have one. And those of you without a uterus do not get to make decisions for mine.

0

lazydazyjlea 5 years ago

If it is not a separate, living, unique human being, then what is it? Apparently these people believe that something miraculous happens if a child is allowed to make its way down the birth canal that makes it a human life, but before that it is not? The only difference between a baby that has been allowed to be born and one that is vulnerable to choice is size, location, environment and degree of dependency. It will be truly be a slippery slope for all of us if this attitude is allowed to prevail. We could all be deemed "less than human" if we become too dependent, too vulnerable. Jlea

0

davidsmom 5 years ago

How is presenting absolute truth, "Misleading?"

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.