Michigan House Passes Sweeping Abortion Bill

Just one more example of RW priorites, their social and moral rule, rather than the economy.

 

So, apparently, Republicans are only interested in regulation when it involves harassing people.

 

A fetus has rights once its born and becomes a living breathing baby.

 

Yes, true, and Democrats are only interested in deregulation when it comes to abortion. So where's a civil libertarian to go?

 

Gary Johnson

 

I am leaning in that direction if the asteroid doesn't hit Romney leaving Ron Paul the man.

 

Why did democrats vote in favor of this bill as well?

 

The vote in favor of the bill was a bipartisan vote. Where is your outrage over the democrats who voted for it?

 

So up until it comes out of the womb and breathes, it has no rights and can be killed at any time?

I am sorry, but I have to disagree with you there.

 

Use a little common sense. No one and I mean no one is suggesting aborting a fetus a week or 2 before birth. You waited this long might as well give birth.

 

But you said it doesn't become a living human being until its out of the womb. This is what you said, not me.

So when do you believe is the cut off to abort a baby? how many weeks?

 

Are we talking legally or morally?
Depends on the definition of human life, when does it become a human life?
Depends on the hardship, if that hardship includes medical problems or carrying a child from rape I see that as the mothers choice.

As long as they are a fetus under the legal number of weeks, yes you can kill them. Or if they are a convicted murderer in a state with capital punishment

Depends on the law. Rights are not something you get just because you think you should. Rights are something that are given by law.

 

It is both legal and moral, as most of our laws already are.

The point I am making is that we don't know exactly what time in terms of weeks, when a baby is an actual human being in the womb. Some babies it might be longer or shorter, in terms of days. So its hard to put a day on anything as to when an abortion is ok.

That is all I am saying, I believe it is unknown and therefore we can't allow a child to be aborted if he or she is a living human being. That is why I am against abortion. Not because I want to control women, but because I believe every child has a right to life. We live in the best nation in the world and are all blessed to be born here. Life is very precious, and we just throw it away like its a bad batch of shrimp.

 

A civil libertarian should invest on developing a contraception that is as close to 100% as possible to being effective. One would take very sizable chuck out of this discussion.

For those who claim life begins at conception, I have read maybe one, if they were honest, care about the lives of miscarriages.

Touche there Zos

 

But legal is the only one that allows us to tell the woman what she can and cant do.

That is why it is left to the states to set their definition of late term abortion. You are for states rights arent you? There is no way to scientifically set an exact week where you could call a fetus viable, this does not mean we default to conception. Lets say that a fetus that is 5 months is viable, set the cutoff at 4 months and I would be fine with it. We still have to have exceptions based on medical concerns found later in the pregnancy for the mother and child though.

You are born with rights, you dont get them when daddy has sex with mommy. I do not believe that any fetus is a living human being, they may be a viable fetus but you do not become a living human being until you are born and living on your own power so to say. These are all irrelevant as they are only opinions, morals and opinions are not what decides what these women can or cant do, that is left to the laws in effect in their state.

 

Yes, I am for states rights. But above that I am for individual rights, as those that should be granted to the unborn. Its pretty simple. Yes you are born with rights. However they don't just start when you break the threshold of a vagina and are out of it.

 

What's wrong libs. Thought you liked regulations. Oh, only when it doesn't affect you and your little pet issues? Weird! I never would have thought you'd all be a pack of double-standard hacks.

Hilarious that the Repubs use the same liberal rhetoric about safety concerns when pushing for regulations on abortion clinics. Kudos to them.

 

Essure is 100% effective, but don't ask me how I know.

I care about life in the womb, I imagine the woman having the miscarriage cares deeply about that. These are human, philosophical, moral, and spiritual questions that the US Federal government has proven itself unfit to provide oversight to. People seem to be under the false impression that prohibiting something actually stops people from doing it. I am not so foolish. Education prevents disease. Education prevents people from shooting up heroin. Education prevents abortion.

Make abortion illegal and a pregnant woman can get on the Superman Coaster ride it 10 times and problem is solved. I realize that sounds harsh, but it is nothing but the truth. They will still have abortions because we have told people that the only life that is important is yours. It would take a cultural change to accomplish making it "rare" and that can't happen when people are frightened that prohibition could happen. It creates extreme apathy even antagonism towards the fetus or extreme apathy and antagonism towards the mother.

So we have the "motionless lump of cells" group and the "lock em up for murder" group which has pretty much stopped any meaningful debate on the topic.

 

So the fetus is the property of the Federal government? Who oversees the baby's rights while it is in the womb? I take offense to this as someone who thinks that abortion is the destruction of human life because it removes the mother--whose historical and primordial right it is--to be the one that administers it.

The second you give that right to the federal government then parents no longer are parents to their children.

 

Who said that it is the property of the federal government? The government does protect the rights of the unborn, as in the case with many murder cases where a mother was murdered, and the criminal was charged not only with her death but the death of their child, (ie see Scott Petersen)

 

If murdering apregnant woman is a DOUBLE HOMICIDE, an unborn child is, obviously, LEGALLY A PERSON.

 

Hey Grok.

So what do you think --and think if say Nancy Pelosi were somehow president-- would happen if we create a law that puts the welfare of the child permanently in the hands of the federal government. What would happen to a pregnant woman who was overweight, for example?

 

I know this, but we're speaking of creating law to overturn Roe v Wade here, correct? Let's see where that law takes us. What happens to the pregnant woman who drinks coffee against her doctor's advice or has pico cravings and eats metal? What about the overweight woman?

 

Abortion like nearly ALL THINGS relative to citizens, is the business of the States. Therefor Roe v Wade is an illegal intrusion into States' rights.

 

On this I agree.

But you still didn't answer my question since the Fed does consider this a federal issue, but that's okay because you have a cute avatar and I'm happy today.