I thought you just said that ObamaCare doesn't provide funding for abortion. Why would anyone's opposition to this (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- what a misnomer) have any bearing on the abortion issue then?

I am for the cessation of Planned Parenthoods abortion services. You can cast that any way you like.

Fortunately, our Supreme Court says you are entitled to your opinion, and also fortunately for those that value personal freedom, your opinion is not our law.

Whoa. No. "except for" means you are sticking your big communist government nose into other people's lives. That is not "getting government out", nor is it not "interfering" :D

So do you support the governors in some states who are trying to make it legal to murder an abortion provider? Yes or no?

I can't think of a more communist big governnment takeover of personal freedoms than what you propose - you forcing people to bear children. Appalling.

Sorry Riot -- it is not "pro reproductive rights" to allow murders in the form of abortions to continue.

As for your love of "communism", I am the one opposed to the redistribution of wealth, remember? Your leftist friends own that term lock, stock and barrel.

And I will do my damndest to make sure that not one dollar of mine goes to any abortion anywhere. So it's not just my opinion -- it's my money too.

:zz::zz:

:zz: It doesn't. The PPACA doesn't provide any funding for abortion. The PPACA does help uninsured women get healthcare from doctors, including gynecologists: who prescribe birth control pills, show how to use condoms, explain how sex works, explain how you get pregnant, and provides education on birth control methods and preventing pregnancy.

Precise the kind of thing I'd think you'd support, as you said you're all for that.

See above.

That's fine. But I asked you if you were in favor of stopping federal funding to Planned Parenthood, the very federal funding that does NOT provide abortions, but DOES provide birth control, pregnancy prevention education - the very things you said you strongly support. Yes or no?

FYI there are not "govenors out there who want to make it legal to kill abortion doctors"

thats ridiculous.

Not even in South dakota, where I assume your reference came from.

"This simply is to bring consistency to South Dakota statute as it relates to justifiable homicide," said Jensen in an interview with Mother Jones, repeating an argument he made in the committee hearing on the bill last week. "If you look at the code, these codes are dealing with illegal acts. Now, abortion is a legal act. So this has got nothing to do with abortion."

^ says the guy who wrote the bill.



doing a little fear mongering today, Riot?

I don't love communism. I fear it when people try to push it on me, when I live in a democratic republic.

You are not opposed to the government forcing women to bear and raise children they don't want.

You are not opposed to the government forcing women to bear and raise children conceived by incest or rape.

You are not opposed to the government preventing women from ending a pregnancy where the fetus is terminally ill, or threatening the life of the mother.

That's pretty damn scary, that government takeover of women's uteruses.

That's what I do, too. I know none of my federal tax dollars go to funding any abortions (it's legally prohibited), so I take care what charities I privately donate to.

There are some governors out west - Nebraska and South Dakota - who are currently trying to get laws passed, to redefine the legal definition of homicide to NOT include those acts involving the killing of abortion providers.

Yeah. Pretty scary. That means that the ******* who killed Dr. George Tillman in his church could not be charged with homicide.

this is false.


its about Women who are hit in the stomach by someone, which could kill their unborn child, have the right to protect their unborn child without facing prosecution.

what you wrote is 100% false.

basically, your interpretation is the same you call out Republicans for when they yell DEATH PANELS!

Nope. Disagree completely with the assessment you quoted of the intended results of the bill. Don't listen to what they say, read what the bill actually says. Which is fortunately why the majority of the state legislatures in SD and Nebraska are, so far, NOT voting those bills into law - I agree with their assessments of the threat and meaning of the law. But some are still trying to get that shiat passed.

It's kinda like Gov. Walker saying, "my budget proposal isn't about union busting" :D

I did read the bill and it did not at all make me think that it would be legal to kill abortion providors.

People who hurt a pregnant mom? specifically her stomach? yes, that is what it is meant for.

Nope. It's not. What you wrote is not inclusive of the extent of the interpretation of the law. Yes, the above is included, too, and would be one specific incident. But the proposed laws in both states are too broad and generalized, and can easily be used against abortion providers.

And read your own guy's statement: what happens the moment abortion is deemed illegal in that state?

We already have laws protecting those who are using self-defense against a threat against their life, and people who kill pregnant women in some states can be charged with two homicides.

Ask yourself - why does the above "unborn child" thing need to be added to those state laws, and in a very broad and non-specific manner? Whenever one passes a law, it's nice to know the intent, but the actual writing of the law often allows for other unintended (or not so unintended) consequences. There is great fears about that with the language of both the proposed laws.

Another interesting question.

Now I'm not against abortion, though I really judge women who use it as a means for birth control, and hope they never reproduce..

but if its legal to abort a first trimester fetus....

&

if a drunk Driver kills a mother and her unborn first trimester fetus

shouldnt the drunk driver only be charged with one murder? since its just a fetus?

then there wont be abortion providers in the state to legally murder?

I'll stand by my interpretation of reading the law.

like i said, its the same as Repubs yelling about death panels.

Nope. Not even close. Look at the language of the law.

I'd say 80% of people are too self centered to be good parents...yet people who shouldn't keep having them.

regarding most people I'm "Pro - I wish your mother had aborted you"

I dont understand why you have to pass a test to drive a car... but anyone with working plumbing can reproduce.

I've seen that "Supernanny" show on TV, and watched three-year-olds running roughshod over adult humans, it makes you scared for the future of the world :p

yes it does but of course it doesn't apply to the abortion debate. There are strong feelings on both sides but too often it is seen as a black/white issue while in truth, it's shades of gray. Both sides can produce "science" to support their view while in truth, we cannot say for sure the exact moment when life begins. There are however some points that seem clear...we must do all we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies. That means education, access to health care, and changing some basic mores of society. Also, we must learn to deal with pregnancies once they occur...that means increased adoptions and shared responsibilities not to mention health care for mother and child, increased accessability to drug rehabs, parenting skills and ways to encourage family units. In a land where corporations advertise padded bras for 8 year old girls, mothers encourage young daughters to participate in beauty contests wearing make-up and sexually suggestive outfits and fathers pass on the desirability to be a "stud" to their sons, it is little wonder that we abort about 1,200,000 a year.

huge question there, one in which even you equivocate. above you said it was obvious, but already in this post, you're at 'if'. it's a point that's been argued, vociferously, by every side.
as far as using birth control, many do so, and not always successfully. so much for that argument...
you feel strongly about this, as is your right. so i say again, don't have one. but don't feel the need to push your beliefs on others. roe v wade won't be overturned. for as long as women have become pregnant, there have been those who don't wish to be, and who have done things to try to change that fact.

Im feeling pretty blessed right now that I was born gay and that I dont have to worry about the one and only way to get pregnant and the 15 or 20 ways to not get pregnant.
Im all for humans being implanted with something that keeps them from impregnating or becoming pregnant when they are born until the time that they they CHOOSE to have a child.
One step further, just an idea, have people prove that they can provide for the child and that they are smart enough to raise them.
No longer is the need for people to have 10 kids to mind the farm we have machines to do that.
I know all this seems absurd but in this day and age(except in the case of rape) there really truly is no reason for people to be reproducing without it being something they want.

Oh my god.

Thank God such an absurd thought hasn't caught hold in our legal system yet.

The ironic thing is that abortion rates are rather steady worldwide, whether they're technically legal or not -- women will get abortions one way or another if they really want them. Might want to brush up on Brazil.

So the long and short of it is that women are going to terminate unwanted pregnancies either way. If it's legal, it's more likely to be safe. If it's illegal, it's more likely to be unsafe.

So you're going to have "dead" DNA strings either way. Whether you're gung-ho about adding more dead, injured, or maimed women to the fray is really what we're arguing here when we cut out all the rest of the crap and it's all said and done.

There is no equivocation intended. I had no idea you'd hang on my every word, but I should have written "Since" instead of "if". I was following the philosophical train of thought which I believe is supported by the facts we have available to us.

Again, "if you believe in abortion, don't have one" can be rewritten equivalently as "if you don't believe in murder, don't commit one". The latter statement is absurd. The highest crime one person can inflict on another needs to be prevented by more stringent means than simple persuasion. There is no valid choice to be made in favor of terminating another innocent human being's existence. The condition of being pregnant is terminated upon delivery. Once you have the baby, you are no longer pregnant.

As for those who don't wish to be pregnant, a situation which you correctly point out has been happening for thousands of years alongside other forms of bad judgment exercised by humans. That is, as they say, "the breaks".

As civil libertarians have quoted for a long time "Your freedom stops at the tip of my nose." This is true of all of the cells having my DNA. Your freedom stops where it injures me. And that is also true of the unborn individual, with his or her unique DNA. The would-be (and "will-be" mother, after Roe v. Wade is overturned) may not undertake any action that would harm or kill that new individual. Period.

The barbarism of abortion cloaked in the terminology of a medical procedure is not some great new advance like supersonic flight or space travel. We are fortunate that it did not exist for much of our history. It is time for the sexually active adults to act like adults, use proper judgment, restraint, and preparedness. True prevention is the real solution here. There should not be a need for this -- certainly not 40 million plus being slaughtered over 38 years. That's about 7 times as many innocent people as Hitler killed. It's disgusting. It's indefensible on an intellectual level. Many who support abortion are just deathly scared of having to use more responsibility in how they conduct their sexual lifestyle.

I think I've demonstrated that since the 1973 decision did not factor in where life begins, or any logic delineating where it "must have begun by" or "could not have started yet", the decision is absurd and arbitrary. After all, a question of where life begins would have some uncertainty, but in that case, the responsible individual (or in this case, Supreme Court Justices) should err on the side of caution. Even if life "might" have started by conception in another individuals mind (I have no doubts, but others might), the responsible action is to say, "Abortion at that point or after could be a murder, so we cannot allow that."

As an analogy, if we suspected, but were not sure, that the population of an endangered species -- the humpback whale, the california condor, the siberian tiger, etc. -- were at a critically low level in population, the responsible action would be to stop hunting them. Why? Because if we're wrong, the worst that happened is that their numbers increase. But if we're right about the population being low and do nothing, they go extinct.

Strangely, many PETA members on the web have supported abortion while opposing hunting and the consumption of animal products. Go figure.

Environmentalists, in the face of mounting evidence against global warming, assert along the lines of "But if it's happening and we do nothing, we're screwed." Their recommended action is to err on the side of what they see as caution. We could always reverse course if it's not true.

Taking a life is a one way street, so every facet of what's going on needs to be understood, and only if it's PROVEN that a human life is not terminated can any action like that take place. That's conservatism, not politically, but in terms of judgment based on the facts we have or can get.

I've heard the whole "back alley" argument before as we all have. The issue is that a crime (like murder) cannot be upheld and supported by the government in a just society. Crime is always in the alleys, out of view, hidden, because in the light of day the non-criminals will object.

Other countries can do what they want - what their citizens decide. But as an American, I want my country to protect life. If people want to go to Brazil to commit a murder, be my guest.

I fully realize how polarizing and emotional this issue is. I just wanted to be as forceful and clear as others have been with their points of view. The discussion has been lively and energetic, as it should be with a subject of this importance.

As an aside, I consulted a couple of Latin to English dictionaries and websites, and the two definitions I found for "fetus" were "little child" or "offspring".

I may have missed it here, but could someone provide the link to the proposed bill regarding justified homicide of one who kills a fetus?
Here in Vermont, I see that we already have laws regarding causing an abortion. I do have to wonder if this state proposal is preparing for a possible overturn in Roe v Wade

And, I wholeheartedly agree that we should do something about non-functioning adults who proceed to have child after child. Perhaps forced sterilazation could cut down on the number of abortions.

Who wants more killing though? It simpler and cleaner, legally, to outlaw abortion and then not have to worry about "justifiable homicide".

Your latter point alludes to another trend. The welfare recipients are the highest producers of child after child that they cannot themselves afford. There is no financial disincentive. But since receiving welfare is the same as being in a contract with the government, a "temporary" contraceptive injection at the time one receives their check is consistent with contract law. When one gets off welfare, obviously they should be free to go about their lives, and have kids which presumably they can now afford to support.

It would be hard to find another contract where one side can unilaterally increase the costs for the other side without bound. And nobody has the right to have more kids than they can afford. What sound judgment and discipline cannot prevent, technology can. But again, we're talking about prevention -- non-conception, not early execution.

No permanent sterilization should be arbitarily handed down. That sounds too much like the Hitlerian eugenics nightmare that we thankfully defeated. Short duration, temporary, injectible birth control only for the duration where one is dependent on the government for support, because this person by definition cannot support more dependents anyway. In fact, the welfare recipient's children are dependents on the taxpayer.

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 22-16-34 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being

any sane, rational person can see that the law does NOT justify killing an abortion doctor. Liberal spin.

I'm going to find the actual bill

And, yes, I halfhazardly thru out the idea of sterilization, when birth control injections (is Norplant still the name?) might be suitable for some

I posted the whole bill two posts above

IIRC, Norplant was an under the armpit subcutaneous implant. I think Depo Privera is the one that comes in an injectable form. It lasts a few months, then has to be repeated. It would be perfectly suited to this job.

Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being

There's the catch (possibly). Help me out here, I thought I remembered elsewhere legal abortion providers being exempt from the justifiable homicide, but I must be missing it here (and I had my coffee)

It's that lawful defense line, I'm not sure that alludes to a legal abortion ?

Where's the DT legal interpreters?

Abortion is not a felony. This bill in no way makes it justifiable to murder an abortion doctor.

it specifically states If there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony

as its been explained by the writers of the bill, it only is for Illegal acts, like if your boyfriend doesnt want a baby and starts beating your pregnant stomach, the woman is justified in killing the boyfriend.

I can agree with that. A lot of these guys, especially the vaunted athletes, should be finished for kicking and punching their pregnant girlfriends in the stomache

Its okay if you are liberal.

But I just dont see how people can read that bill and think it means its okay to kill an abortion doctor.

If somehow abortion was illegal, I could understand. But abortion is legal, I just dont get it.

Liberals in the media do spin things just like Right Wingers in the media do. Thats what I feel this issue is about.