Thread: Michigan House Passes Sweeping Abortion Bill

Originally Posted by Piscivorous

Once pregnancy is confirmed. Doesn't matter if it might be just a cluster of cells. Or are you suggesting that cells aren't alive?

Cancer cells are alive too. I do not believe that a cluster of cells should have the same or more rights than a woman. Define a realistic point where a fetus can survive outside of the mother and subtract a month and make it law, I am perfectly fine with that as long as there are exceptions for certain circumstances.

Originally Posted by Gaymom

Right..the man has no responsibility. Typical.

Certainly he does. But if he isn't inclined to wearing protection than she has to either insist that he do or at least assure herself that she is protected. If the relationship is a lengthy one, she might also insist that he split the cost of their joint entertainment.

Originally Posted by Consmike

I already answered that. I don't know when. Hence, why I have decided that I am against abortion since I don't know when exactly it is the killing of a human life.

So since you cannot put a realistic time on it you say conception? A fertilized egg has equal rights that win out over a womans rights at that time? I am against abortion too, but I also am realistic in believing that an egg is not a human life.

Should there be any exceptions or should abortion be 100% illegal?

Originally Posted by Piscivorous

Certainly he does. But if he isn't inclined to wearing protection than she has to either insist that he do or at least assure herself that she is protected. If the relationship is a lengthy one, she might also insist that he split the cost of their joint entertainment.

If he won't use protection, he's not worth keeping. (selfish bast#$%)

Originally Posted by hopeless_in_2012

Cancer cells are alive too. I do not believe that a cluster of cells should have the same or more rights than a woman. Define a realistic point where a fetus can survive outside of the mother and subtract a month and make it law, I am perfectly fine with that as long as there are exceptions for certain circumstances.

You're really going to demean the argument by comparing fetal cells with cancerous ones? There really are less repulsive ways of making the same argument.

Originally Posted by hopeless_in_2012

Should there be any exceptions or should abortion be 100% illegal?

Certainly there are exceptions. But those exceptions amount to less than 1% of all abortions performed each year. I think it is a tragedy that all of these pregnancies are aborted. The other tragedy is that Planned Parenthood should be working hand in hand with adoption clinics and make that their priority over abortions.

Originally Posted by BestViewedWithCable

WTF???

Abortion is Birth control.

I dont know anyone who isnt catholic who opposes contraception.

Virtually ALL anti-abortion fanatics are opposed to birth control in ALL its forms.

They simply don't mention their opposition to contraception in public because they know they would lose too much support from the public.

Everyone can be SURE that MOST of the anti-abortionists want to regulate your sex life in EVERY WAY!

Here's a sample:

So I emailed Jill Stanek, an important pro-life leader (she’s the Chicago nurse who almost single handedly made Barack Obama’s opposition to Illinois’ “born alive” legislation a big issue in the 2008 campaign). A “non-denominational Christian,” she speaks around the nation and blogs at JillStanek.com .
My goal here was not to assess or challenge every thing Jill said but to tease out one question: why — really — do pro-life leaders resist birth control as a way of reducing the number of abortions?.....

[Jill Stanek]
.......

2. One potential action of hormonal contraceptives is to abort a 5-9 day old preborn baby. And that’s all IUDs do – abort.

3. Contraceptives are the root of abortion. “Contraceptive” means anti-conception. Contraceptives establish a mindset of hostility toward the blessing of children.

Ms. Stanek goes farther with why they think we should all bow to their "superior morality" by LAW!

4. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. Steve, you’re a believer. You know the rules God set up are for our own good. We breach them, we suffer consequences. We compromise, we suffer consequences. We need to teach that sex outside of marriage is categorically harmful. We may not be able to say this is Biblical teaching. But we can bank on the fact this teaching is solid, and we have 40+ years of statistics in this case to prove it. We do not say, don’t murder but here’s how in case you can’t resist. We do not say, don’t steal but here’s how in case you can’t resist. We do not say, don’t commit adultery but here’s how in case you can’t resist. We have to resist the culture and think the same way about premarital sex.

Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwald...#ixzz1xtiYapwo

Here is the REAL attitudes from this bunch of control freaks when they bother being honest.

First, all women are busy "hooking a guy" by getting pregnant "on purpose":

Originally Posted by grokmaster

No, I think they get pregnant to "hook a guy",and when it doesn't work out....death to the child. Look at the demographics of abortion.

Also, all women who get pregnant ARE SLUTS having sex with hundreds of men without even knowing who they are. Of course, NO "good woman" would ever be some woman who had to do the boss to keep her job.

Originally Posted by Iron River

Where does George come up with this stuff. It is very easy for a working woman to keep from getting pregnant. If she has more kids than she can support with her job skills then she might not want to screw all the men at work in the store room.?? Hell, she might want to keep track of the various fathers of her kids and ask them to pay for some of their support.?

My, my!

Regulation of eugenics.

What a can of worms.

Originally Posted by Zosiasmom

You're really going to demean the argument by comparing fetal cells with cancerous ones? There really are less repulsive ways of making the same argument.

Yes I am going to make that argument. Cells are cells at that point. Would you rather I used a comparison to clipping finger nails or cutting your hair? A fertilized egg is not a human life, at some point it becomes a viable fetus and becomes a human life when removed from the mothers body. Again, I am against abortion. But I do not think that the government has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body, up until a point I see the fetus as part of the womans body. Remember, the woman has rights that she got when she was born. Ban late term abortion, I am fine with that. But right now in this country abortion is legal. Your opinion or mine has no bearing on whether a woman can get an abortion.

Originally Posted by hopeless_in_2012

Cancer cells are alive too. I do not believe that a cluster of cells should have the same or more rights than a woman. Define a realistic point where a fetus can survive outside of the mother and subtract a month and make it law, I am perfectly fine with that as long as there are exceptions for certain circumstances.

One tiny difference, the cluster of cancer cells WILL kill the host. In a liberal, the cluster of fetal cells WILL be killed BY the host. Probably to prevent the cell cluster from becoming a person smarter than the average liberal.