Lawrence and Douglas county
Line of text in abortion bill draws political line in the sand
April 13, 2009
Advertisement
Read more
Topeka — 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.
Top ads RSS
- BAM! You found it! Sign on Bonus Interviewing Wednesday. First ...
- SENIOR SUPERVISORS (2 Openings) Both openings performs daily food service ...
- Patient Care Technician Full time position at Kansas Dialysis Services ...
- SEEKING FULL TIME TELLER • Requires good customer service skills. ...
- Kids Fitness Instructor - Basehor, Bonner Springs, Tonganoxie, Eudora Looking ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- ‘Tea party’ is Palin’s people February 7, 2010 · 235 comments
- On the street: Would you like to see the local anti-smoking ordinance overturned? February 10, 2010 · 1 comment
- Proposed constitutional amendment to block federal health care reform considered February 9, 2010 · 50 comments
- Rep. John Murtha, Iraq war critic, dies at 77 February 9, 2010 · 89 comments
- Blog: Marion - Disappeareded 1-23-2010 January 23, 2010 · 806 comments
- Bill would allow big-cat hunting February 9, 2010 · 73 comments
- The only choice February 9, 2010 · 55 comments
- Poll: Paper, plastic or, no thanks, I brought my own tote bag? February 8, 2010 · 49 comments
- Kansas Legislature considers poverty waivers for those looking to get married, but unable to pay fees February 9, 2010 · 35 comments
- Blog: Anna Undercover Mini-Blog: More Drugs February 8, 2010 · 41 comments
- Kansas Legislature considers poverty waivers for those looking to get married, but unable to pay fees February 9, 2010
- Tour of Lawrence offers events for all ages, interests February 9, 2010
- KDHE orders salvage yard to change practices February 9, 2010
- KU employee suspected of charging personal items on university credit card February 9, 2010
- Love bonds February 8, 2010
- Peoples Bank ordered by federal regulators to improve financial condition February 1, 2010
- KU communication studies professor is a finalist for MU post February 9, 2010
- Robinson lifts Cowboys, 49-33 January 1, 2008
- Open house to discuss Highway 56 moved to Baldwin City school February 9, 2010
- Bill would allow big-cat hunting February 9, 2010
13 April 2009
at 6:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
davidsmom (Anonymous) says…
How is presenting absolute truth, “Misleading?”
13 April 2009
at 6:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lazydazyjlea (Anonymous) says…
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
13 April 2009
at 7:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
grammaddy (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 7:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tumbilweed (Anonymous) says…
davidsmom,
Just the simple fact that you believe that there exists an absolute truth is in itself misleading.
Nothing can be proven absolutely.
13 April 2009
at 7:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pooter (Anonymous) says…
Sorry grammaddy, but the whole “it's my body” argument goes up in smoke with all the anti-drug laws.
*
13 April 2009
at 7:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
grammaddy (Anonymous) says…
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…
13 April 2009
at 7:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
preebo (Anonymous) says…
“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?
13 April 2009
at 7:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cait48 (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 8:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
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.”
13 April 2009
at 8:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
You mean a developing child has its own DNA? I didn't read that in any of the Planned Parenthood propaganda.
13 April 2009
at 8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
charliejohnson (Anonymous) says…
I'm with gramm
13 April 2009
at 9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rooster (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
UfoPilot (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?
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.
13 April 2009
at 9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lawthing (Anonymous) says…
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!
13 April 2009
at 9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Did_I_say_that (Anonymous) says…
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
13 April 2009
at 10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rooster (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 10:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cg22165 (Anonymous) says…
Cait48 has it.
Did_I, if you want to argue with the conclusion, you should address the supporting arguments. You haven't.
13 April 2009
at 10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jersey_Girl (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dweezil222 (Anonymous) says…
I don't think the legislature should be in the business of drawing such lines when medical experts reasonably differ on such points.
13 April 2009
at 10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kugrad (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dweezil222 (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KansasVoter (Anonymous) says…
“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.
13 April 2009
at 10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
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
13 April 2009
at 11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
OldEnuf—what part of the Constitution was changed to overruled Plessy v. Ferguson?
13 April 2009
at 11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
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
13 April 2009
at 11:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 12:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Left_handed (Anonymous) says…
Roe versus Wade settled this issue? Just like the Dred Scott ruling settled slavery.
13 April 2009
at 12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
grammaddy (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) 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?!
13 April 2009
at 12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
grammaddy (Anonymous) says…
And by the way, I'm not “pro-abortion”, I'm pro-choice.Unless you have a uterus, shut up and go away.
13 April 2009
at 12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cait48 (Anonymous) says…
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)
13 April 2009
at 1:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_He…
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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W…
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
13 April 2009
at 1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Machiavelli_mania (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cait48 (Anonymous) says…
Agnostick sometimes you and I think so much alike it's scary.
13 April 2009
at 1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bwebcorp (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 1:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Finding_Uranus (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 1:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
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
13 April 2009
at 1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Did_I_say_that (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RonBurgandy (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KLATTU (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
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.
13 April 2009
at 2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Irish (Irish Swearingen) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 3:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
igby (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
“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.
13 April 2009
at 3:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
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.
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.
13 April 2009
at 4:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
shockchalk (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beatrice (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 4:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
13 April 2009
at 4:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
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
13 April 2009
at 5:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jersey_Girl (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 5:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
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?
13 April 2009
at 7:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Slowponder (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 8:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
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/issu…
13 April 2009
at 9:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
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.
13 April 2009
at 9:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
grammaddy (Anonymous) says…
We're not pro-abortion, we're pro-choice, idiots. Get it right.
13 April 2009
at 10:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mercy (Anonymous) says…
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.
14 April 2009
at 5:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
viewfromahill (Anonymous) says…
“… a callous overreach by anti-abortionists.”
(Orwell sooooo called this one.)
14 April 2009
at 5:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
viewfromahill (Anonymous) says…
(News-speak)
14 April 2009
at 6:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Polly_Gomer (Anonymous) says…
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.
14 April 2009
at 6:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
viewfromahill (Anonymous) says…
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?
14 April 2009
at 7:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
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?
14 April 2009
at 7:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KansasVoter (Anonymous) says…
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?
14 April 2009
at 9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
karrin (Anonymous) says…
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!!
14 April 2009
at 10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jersey_Girl (Anonymous) says…
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.
14 April 2009
at 10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jersey_Girl (Anonymous) says…
logicsound - don't forget the bombing of clinics and killings of abortion providers by “pro-lifers”. How are those actions pro-life?
14 April 2009
at 11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Did_I_say_that (Anonymous) says…
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.
14 April 2009
at 11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rtwngr (Anonymous) says…
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.
14 April 2009
at 11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rtwngr (Anonymous) says…
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.
14 April 2009
at 11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
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]
14 April 2009
at 11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
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
14 April 2009
at 12:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
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.
14 April 2009
at 1:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
madman (Anonymous) says…
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.
14 April 2009
at 2:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jersey_Girl (Anonymous) says…
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.
14 April 2009
at 3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
madameX (Anonymous) says…
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.
14 April 2009
at 10:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rtwngr (Anonymous) says…
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?
14 April 2009
at 11:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
2349282 (Anonymous) says…
“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.
15 April 2009
at 1:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Did_I_say_that (Anonymous) says…
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.
15 April 2009
at 7:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rtwngr (Anonymous) says…
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.
15 April 2009
at 7:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…
“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.
15 April 2009
at 10:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rtwngr (Anonymous) says…
logicsound04 - You are complicit in murder.
16 April 2009
at 1:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ilikestuff (Anonymous) says…
…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