AZ passes law saying life beings pre-conception

[koshergrl]

No, it makes you a bigot.

Look up the definition.

 

[newpolitics]

No, it makes you a bigot.

Look up the definition.

A bigot is someone who is intolerant of someone else's opinions.

I am tolerant of your opinions on morality and your ideas of faith, and defend your right to hold any opinions and speak them (freedom of speech). I am, however, intolerant of your impressing that morality, which is based on unfalsifiable assertions (namely, that the christian god exists), on other people in the court room and legislatively. That doesn't make me a bigot. That makes me an american who follows the constitution.

 

[AnonymousIV]

NASHVILLE – Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam today rolled out a comprehensive statewide campaign designed to inform Tennesseans about the consequences of violating the “I Hate Meth Act,” which took effect on July 1, 2011. The announcement took place in coordination with the Tennessee Sheriffs’ Association meeting in Nashville.

“The goal of this campaign is to communicate the harsh consequences of violating our anti-meth law,” Haslam said. “We want to deter people from making and using meth in our state, which will save lives, protect children, save taxpayer dollars, and make Tennessee safer overall.”

The “Meth Stops Now” campaign is an action step in the administration’s public safety action plan and specifically addresses the portion of the anti-meth law that increases the penalties for making or using meth in the presence of children and for purchasing pseudoephedrine products for non-medical uses.

The communications campaign targets the counties in Tennessee where there have been the highest number of children removed from homes due to meth-related incidents and the greatest number of meth lab seizures. In 2011, the Department of Children’s Services removed 321 children from their parents’ custody due to meth use or manufacturing. Law enforcement officials also seized 1,687 meth labs in Tennessee last year, the second highest number in the nation, according to the Tennessee Meth Task Force.

The governor also announced $750,000 in his budget amendment for the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation to assist local governments with training and equipment costs related to meth clean-up. This funding was originally appropriated for the current fiscal year but required matching funds from local governments of 25 percent. The current budget proposal eliminates the matching requirement.

Created by the Tombras Group, the anti-meth campaign is funded by the Department of Finance and Administration’s Office of Criminal Justice Programs through a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, and by the Consumer Healthcare Products Association. It includes radio public service announcements, billboards, gas pump advertisements, in-store signage, informational pharmacy bag fliers, a website (METH DESTROYS), and bumper stickers for law enforcement vehicles.

Partners in the effort include the Department of Safety and Homeland Security, Department of Children’s Services, Tennessee Meth Task Force, Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference, Tennessee Association of Chiefs of Police, Tennessee Sheriffs’ Association, Tennessee Pharmacists Association, and the Consumer Healthcare Products Association

 

[koshergrl]

Actually, you just moved the goal posts.

We were not discussing whether you thought religion should be forced upon others. That has never come up. You stated that you dismissed anti-abortion legislation out of hand BECAUSE IT ORIGINATED WITH RELIGIOUS PEOPLE (or at least you think it does). That is bigotry.

And bigotry does exactly this..you throw out the baby with the bathwater. Your hatred is so great at the people from whom the legislation comes from, that even though you acknowledge that you agree with it, you reject it because of the fact it comes from people you view as religious.

Murder is also a religious concept....all religions abhor it. So do you think we should reject all legislation that makes it illegal based on teh fact that religious groups decry it?

 

[newpolitics]

Actually, you just moved the goal posts.

We were not discussing whether you thought religion should be forced upon others. That has never come up. You stated that you dismissed anti-abortion legislation out of hand BECAUSE IT ORIGINATED WITH RELIGIOUS PEOPLE (or at least you think it does). That is bigotry.

And bigotry does exactly this..you throw out the baby with the bathwater. Your hatred is so great at the people from whom the legislation comes from, that even though you acknowledge that you agree with it, you reject it because of the fact it comes from people you view as religious.

Murder is also a religious concept....all religions abhor it. So do you think we should reject all legislation that makes it illegal based on teh fact that religious groups decry it?

First of all, murder is not a religious concept. Don't claim ownership of it because it is mentioned in the ten commandments. Second, I am not dismissing anti-abortion legislation because of anyone's religious belief or motivation. That would be an appeal to motive, and is a fallacy. I dismiss anti-abortion legislation because it is unconstitutional and infringes on everyones ability to choose. I don't care if it is proposed by atheists. It is unconstitutional. That will never change. Proponents of such legislation are almost exclusively religious fundamentalists who feel the need to impose their worldview on everyones else. This immoral. This is unconstitutional as well, and I will call them on it every chance I get.

Stop using a straw man and understand what I am saying. In other words, don't misrepresent my argument. It's really annoying.

 

[AnonymousIV]

I don't care about your religion, that's what you fall back on, for justification when your self esteem is hurt. I believe there is a higher power. I was looking at some tiny ants today and know that to the universe man is also that way. That the flesh is a delicate thing and has been improved by people handing good down to others for a long time. Your ideas of good are unreal. Seriously

 

[Intense]

Why do people celebrate birthdays, rather than fuckdays?

Birthdays, you are more sure of?

Didn't the Chinese or Japanese Astrologers not try to figure the best days to inseminate, in relation the Birth of Leaders?

 

[Intense]

So you take a stance against it because Christians believe murdering innocents is wrong.

Way to showcase your bigotry there, skippy.

thats not bigotry fuckstick...Seriously words have meanings and you cant just assign random words to things because you think its correct.

We were not discussing whether you thought religion should be forced upon others. That has never come up. You stated that you dismissed anti-abortion legislation out of hand BECAUSE IT ORIGINATED WITH RELIGIOUS PEOPLE (or at least you think it does). That is bigotry.

No thats just dismissing it, not bigotry.

Hell by definition you are a bigot in your own right for how you dismiss every argument that isnt pro-life.

haha

nd bigotry does exactly this..you throw out the baby with the bathwater. Your hatred is so great at the people from whom the legislation comes from, that even though you acknowledge that you agree with it, you reject it because of the fact it comes from people you view as religious.

hahaha irony, shut up hypocrite.Seriously do even read what you write? You are a dishonest, loathing little shit, who runs around here lying her little mouth off, and being a bigot to anything she doesnt agree with.

Potty Mouth.

 

[buckeye45_73]

the allegedly 'small government GOP'er Jan Brewer has signed into law saying, essentially, life begins two weeks before conception.

so now, every time you ovulate...congrats you're a mom.

nutters...

AllGov - News - Arizona Law Declares Life Begins before Conception: Update

the statute...one of the most disgusting i've ever read.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/adopted/s.2036jud.pdf

While it's stupid to say preconception, it's a trick liberals do, redefine something that impacts another result. They're doing this to make it 18 weeks to stop abortions.

I have a question, Roe Vs WAde only made the first trimester available for abortion, so that is 12 weeks, how did it get beyond that?

 

[Navy1960]

I am constantly surprised by postions held by some who call themselves "conservatives". When I first started voting for Sen. Goldwater and many other's through the years the basic concept of "conservative" was that men and women were better able to decide for themselves their destiny than an all intrusive Govt. and likewise a respect for the Constitution. This Bill here in Arizona while seeking to stop "abortion" after 20 weeks and frankly other than for the life of the mother, I cannot see a reason why someone would choose to do that. That said the Bill itself on it's face flys in the face of the principles that the party long held dear and seeks a Govt. solution which is "more" intrusive not "less", and still further, it is built upon the concept of one religions views of when life beings thus flying in the face of the 1st Amendment. If this bill had sought to limit abortions after 20 weeks the language in it that defines when life begins as well as some other language that limits access and choice that Americans make would not be needed and the bill would go something like this and would have my full support.

Be it known that in the State of Arizona after 20 weeks of pregnancy, no abortions will be performed in this state and any and all persons having license to perform these prodecures after 20 weeks will be held guilty in a court of law.

The state of Arizona and it's legislature has spent a lot of time on bills at the Center for Arizona Policy which we have been forced to defend in any number of state and federal courts at the expense of the taxpayers here. CAP does not care about costing the state jobs, in their mission to force their moral views on the citizens of this state and to call themselves "conservatives" , I would suggest they read a book.

“I know there are those who say a conservative should be pro-life, which I am, but I’m not sure a person has to be that to qualify as a conservative. Nor am I sure that a person must be opposed to pornography, which I am. In both cases there are questions of individual rights and responsibilities which are arguable."


Lyn Nofgizer


"A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right."
Sen. Barry Goldwater

“I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”
Sen. John McCain

The states are not free, under the guise of protecting maternal health or potential life, to intimidate women into continuing pregnancies. ~Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe v. Wade, 22 January 1973

I might remind people that this bills title is " The Women's Health and Safety Act "

 

[jillian]

I am constantly surprised by postions held by some who call themselves "conservatives". When I first started voting for Sen. Goldwater and many other's through the years the basic concept of "conservative" was that men and women were better able to decide for themselves their destiny than an all intrusive Govt. and likewise a respect for the Constitution. This Bill here in Arizona while seeking to stop "abortion" after 20 weeks and frankly other than for the life of the mother, I cannot see a reason why someone would choose to do that. That said the Bill itself on it's face flys in the face of the principles that the party long held dear and seeks a Govt. solution which is "more" intrusive not "less", and still further, it is built upon the concept of one religions views of when life beings thus flying in the face of the 1st Amendment. If this bill had sought to limit abortions after 20 weeks the language in it that defines when life begins as well as some other language that limits access and choice that Americans make would not be needed and the bill would go something like this and would have my full support.

Be it known that in the State of Arizona after 20 weeks of pregnancy, no abortions will be performed in this state and any and all persons having license to perform these prodecures after 20 weeks will be held guilty in a court of law.

The state of Arizona and it's legislature has spent a lot of time on bills at the Center for Arizona Policy which we have been forced to defend in any number of state and federal courts at the expense of the taxpayers here. CAP does not care about costing the state jobs, in their mission to force their moral views on the citizens of this state and to call themselves "conservatives" , I would suggest they read a book.

“I know there are those who say a conservative should be pro-life, which I am, but I’m not sure a person has to be that to qualify as a conservative. Nor am I sure that a person must be opposed to pornography, which I am. In both cases there are questions of individual rights and responsibilities which are arguable."


Lyn Nofgizer


"A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right."
Sen. Barry Goldwater

“I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”
Sen. John McCain

The states are not free, under the guise of protecting maternal health or potential life, to intimidate women into continuing pregnancies. ~Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe v. Wade, 22 January 1973

I might remind people that this bills title is " The Women's Health and Safety Act "

^^^^^^^^^^^

what he said...

it's probably a good idea for some so-called conservatives to read that over a few dozen times.

 

[Intense]

I am constantly surprised by postions held by some who call themselves "conservatives". When I first started voting for Sen. Goldwater and many other's through the years the basic concept of "conservative" was that men and women were better able to decide for themselves their destiny than an all intrusive Govt. and likewise a respect for the Constitution. This Bill here in Arizona while seeking to stop "abortion" after 20 weeks and frankly other than for the life of the mother, I cannot see a reason why someone would choose to do that. That said the Bill itself on it's face flys in the face of the principles that the party long held dear and seeks a Govt. solution which is "more" intrusive not "less", and still further, it is built upon the concept of one religions views of when life beings thus flying in the face of the 1st Amendment. If this bill had sought to limit abortions after 20 weeks the language in it that defines when life begins as well as some other language that limits access and choice that Americans make would not be needed and the bill would go something like this and would have my full support.

Be it known that in the State of Arizona after 20 weeks of pregnancy, no abortions will be performed in this state and any and all persons having license to perform these prodecures after 20 weeks will be held guilty in a court of law.

The state of Arizona and it's legislature has spent a lot of time on bills at the Center for Arizona Policy which we have been forced to defend in any number of state and federal courts at the expense of the taxpayers here. CAP does not care about costing the state jobs, in their mission to force their moral views on the citizens of this state and to call themselves "conservatives" , I would suggest they read a book.

“I know there are those who say a conservative should be pro-life, which I am, but I’m not sure a person has to be that to qualify as a conservative. Nor am I sure that a person must be opposed to pornography, which I am. In both cases there are questions of individual rights and responsibilities which are arguable."


Lyn Nofgizer


"A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right."
Sen. Barry Goldwater

“I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”
Sen. John McCain

The states are not free, under the guise of protecting maternal health or potential life, to intimidate women into continuing pregnancies. ~Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe v. Wade, 22 January 1973

I might remind people that this bills title is " The Women's Health and Safety Act "

Though We may agree that Abortion should be an Individual Choice, not Mandate, the Conservative Perspective would be that it be a State Issue, not Federal, at least not without a Constitutional Amendment, either way. That would mean that the guide lines would vary State by State. Serious Matters require some sort of Regulation, again by the consent of the Governed. To act beyond consent, is a matter concerning all of us, not just Conservatives. Having reasonable boundaries should not be in contention either, though what and where, and how, need to be defined and supported with the consent of the governed. It is up to us to decide, rather than be herded.

 

[PredFan]

What difference does this stupid law make? It isn't going to end abortions in Arizona, it isn't going to make contraception illegal, it's political pandering to the religious right. Mitt Romney isn't supporting it, he didn't write it, he didn't vote for it.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..............

 

[Navy1960]

I am constantly surprised by postions held by some who call themselves "conservatives". When I first started voting for Sen. Goldwater and many other's through the years the basic concept of "conservative" was that men and women were better able to decide for themselves their destiny than an all intrusive Govt. and likewise a respect for the Constitution. This Bill here in Arizona while seeking to stop "abortion" after 20 weeks and frankly other than for the life of the mother, I cannot see a reason why someone would choose to do that. That said the Bill itself on it's face flys in the face of the principles that the party long held dear and seeks a Govt. solution which is "more" intrusive not "less", and still further, it is built upon the concept of one religions views of when life beings thus flying in the face of the 1st Amendment. If this bill had sought to limit abortions after 20 weeks the language in it that defines when life begins as well as some other language that limits access and choice that Americans make would not be needed and the bill would go something like this and would have my full support.

Be it known that in the State of Arizona after 20 weeks of pregnancy, no abortions will be performed in this state and any and all persons having license to perform these prodecures after 20 weeks will be held guilty in a court of law.

The state of Arizona and it's legislature has spent a lot of time on bills at the Center for Arizona Policy which we have been forced to defend in any number of state and federal courts at the expense of the taxpayers here. CAP does not care about costing the state jobs, in their mission to force their moral views on the citizens of this state and to call themselves "conservatives" , I would suggest they read a book.

“I know there are those who say a conservative should be pro-life, which I am, but I’m not sure a person has to be that to qualify as a conservative. Nor am I sure that a person must be opposed to pornography, which I am. In both cases there are questions of individual rights and responsibilities which are arguable."


Lyn Nofgizer


"A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right."
Sen. Barry Goldwater

“I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”
Sen. John McCain

The states are not free, under the guise of protecting maternal health or potential life, to intimidate women into continuing pregnancies. ~Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe v. Wade, 22 January 1973

I might remind people that this bills title is " The Women's Health and Safety Act "

Though We may agree that Abortion should be an Individual Choice, not Mandate, the Conservative Perspective would be that it be a State Issue, not Federal, at least not without a Constitutional Amendment, either way. That would mean that the guide lines would vary State by State. Serious Matters require some sort of Regulation, again by the consent of the Governed. To act beyond consent, is a matter concerning all of us, not just Conservatives. Having reasonable boundaries should not be in contention either, though what and where, and how, need to be defined and supported with the consent of the governed. It is up to us to decide, rather than be herded.

While I don't disagree with that, I have pointed out in this bill the boundries should they have been set with the intention of limiting abortions based on something that most can agree on such as say "20 weeks" for example, I would have little issue with it. However, when those boundries are breached and a State steps on the Constiutional rights of others in the name of a belief system that happens to be narrow in scope , then they are acting beyond the scope of what that state allowed them to do and back to that "consent thing". I have suggested that if for example, someone were a Budhist for example or Jewish and did not hold to a bill who's language contained the words " life begins at conception" then based its legislation on that fact, it does not square with "conservative" principles, nor does it square with the Constitution.

 

[koshergrl]

I am constantly surprised by postions held by some who call themselves "conservatives". When I first started voting for Sen. Goldwater and many other's through the years the basic concept of "conservative" was that men and women were better able to decide for themselves their destiny than an all intrusive Govt. and likewise a respect for the Constitution. This Bill here in Arizona while seeking to stop "abortion" after 20 weeks and frankly other than for the life of the mother, I cannot see a reason why someone would choose to do that. That said the Bill itself on it's face flys in the face of the principles that the party long held dear and seeks a Govt. solution which is "more" intrusive not "less", and still further, it is built upon the concept of one religions views of when life beings thus flying in the face of the 1st Amendment. If this bill had sought to limit abortions after 20 weeks the language in it that defines when life begins as well as some other language that limits access and choice that Americans make would not be needed and the bill would go something like this and would have my full support.

Be it known that in the State of Arizona after 20 weeks of pregnancy, no abortions will be performed in this state and any and all persons having license to perform these prodecures after 20 weeks will be held guilty in a court of law.

The state of Arizona and it's legislature has spent a lot of time on bills at the Center for Arizona Policy which we have been forced to defend in any number of state and federal courts at the expense of the taxpayers here. CAP does not care about costing the state jobs, in their mission to force their moral views on the citizens of this state and to call themselves "conservatives" , I would suggest they read a book.

“I know there are those who say a conservative should be pro-life, which I am, but I’m not sure a person has to be that to qualify as a conservative. Nor am I sure that a person must be opposed to pornography, which I am. In both cases there are questions of individual rights and responsibilities which are arguable."


Lyn Nofgizer


"A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right."
Sen. Barry Goldwater

“I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”
Sen. John McCain

The states are not free, under the guise of protecting maternal health or potential life, to intimidate women into continuing pregnancies. ~Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe v. Wade, 22 January 1973

I might remind people that this bills title is " The Women's Health and Safety Act "

^^^^^^^^^^^

what he said...

it's probably a good idea for some so-called conservatives to read that over a few dozen times.

Women's individual rights don't trump the rights of their children. Women should not be granted special permission to kill their children, just because they give birth to them.

 

[koshergrl]

Ultimately the right to abortion is hotly contested because it benefits men for women to obtain abortions. It benefits rapists, it benefits child molesters who get their victims pregnant, it benefits pimps and human traffickers.

And THAT is why men fight so hard to keep it legal. It has nothing to do with the rights of women. It has to do with the abuse and subjugation of them.

 

[Zoom-boing]

All I know, is that a newly conceived egg does not feel pain, therefore, without suffering, the death of that egg can not be said to be immoral. Conscious suffering is what largely defines immorality to me. It is to inflict suffering unnecessarily on a being that does not choose it or does not have the ability to defend against it (e.g., factory farmed animals... why don't we talk about their suffering? Go vegan EARTHLINGS - Make the Connection. | Nation Earth )

I do see a sufficiently formed fetus as a human. I just don't know at what point a human is a human, and hence the crux of the problem. Yet I will universally deny the theist position that life starts at conception, and based on that theism, legislate against it. That is immoral, because you now forcing people to do what they do not want to, when it is their body.

Exactly how do the unborn defend themselves against being aborted??

Humans beget humans. From the moment of conception (oh sorry Jillian, fertilization) it is 100% human. The moment of fertilization is a human being in the earliest stages of its development. It doesn't 'become more human'; it is human from the get go. It becomes 'more developed' but it is always human.

Abortion destroys/ends/terminates the life of another human. Pro-choice supports the choice of a woman to end the life of another human.

Who cares about fertilization. That egg does not feel pain without it having a central nervous system, so it doesn't matter. It is not aware at all of its own existence, being conscious arises from a fully formed nervous system, made up of many cells. A fertilized egg is one cell (or two technically? I don't know), that can not detect itself. That doesn't happen for a few months, so there is a window where aborting is ethical. It is undoubtedly sad to waste a potential human life that is so close to fruition, but it is not unethical. Unethical is, as I said, what we do to our food animals, who are fully formed in their central nervous system... they are not made in God's image, so it doesn't matter. Christianity is so dumb. It produces more immorality than it pretends to put aside.

My point went right over your head. Figures.

Moron. It isn't "a potential human life", it is human from the moment it is conceived. It doesn't "become more human"; it has everything it needs right from the get go. It goes through stages of development but it is a living human from beginning. Your rambling highlights the pro-choice meme beautifully . . . "de-humanize" the thing and poof! no problem destroying it.

Sick.

 

[jillian]

Exactly how do the unborn defend themselves against being aborted??

Humans beget humans. From the moment of conception (oh sorry Jillian, fertilization) it is 100% human. The moment of fertilization is a human being in the earliest stages of its development. It doesn't 'become more human'; it is human from the get go. It becomes 'more developed' but it is always human.

Abortion destroys/ends/terminates the life of another human. Pro-choice supports the choice of a woman to end the life of another human.

Who cares about fertilization. That egg does not feel pain without it having a central nervous system, so it doesn't matter. It is not aware at all of its own existence, being conscious arises from a fully formed nervous system, made up of many cells. A fertilized egg is one cell (or two technically? I don't know), that can not detect itself. That doesn't happen for a few months, so there is a window where aborting is ethical. It is undoubtedly sad to waste a potential human life that is so close to fruition, but it is not unethical. Unethical is, as I said, what we do to our food animals, who are fully formed in their central nervous system... they are not made in God's image, so it doesn't matter. Christianity is so dumb. It produces more immorality than it pretends to put aside.

My point went right over your head. Figures.

Moron. It isn't "a potential human life", it is human from the moment it is conceived. It doesn't "become more human"; it has everything it needs right from the get go. It goes through stages of development but it is a living human from beginning. Your rambling highlights the pro-choice meme beautifully . . . "de-humanize" the thing and poof! no problem destroying it.

Sick.

so feel free to make your own choices.

stay out of others'.

it's not that complicated.

 

[Navy1960]

"I think it's important that it remain legal, because I think it's important for people, for medical reasons and other reasons," Laura Bush on CNN's Larry King when asked about Roe v. Wade

Betty Ford openly declared her support for Roe v Wade, stating in a television interview that the decision took the issue “out of the backwoods and put [it] in the hospital where it belongs.”

Barbara Bush, in stunning contrast with the position her husband has maintained for the last 12 years, contends that abortion is "a personal choice" and that Republicans should drop the rigid anti-abortion plank from the party platform. "The personal things should be left out of, in my opinion, out of platforms and conventions." LA Times

Ayn Rand:
"One method of destroying a concept is by diluting its meaning. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living."

Hillary Clinton:
"I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion."

Hedy Epstein- Epstein was born to a Jewish family in Freiburg, Germany, and in 1939 fled Nazi persecution via the Kindertransport to England. All but two of her family were killed at Auschwitz concentration camp during the Holocaust. and is pro choice.

I would be very careful when using words to put people into a catagory simply based on an issue that some might have a disagreement with you on. As most of those might have common ground to stand on it is not something that benefits what some might have mentioned on here, but yet. each of those women up there was a daughter to a fathter and like me who has a daughter, I would hope that the society she lives in is free for her to make the choices she see's fit , from from the intrusion of others and a Govt. that is motived by the opinions of one religions view.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Who cares about fertilization. That egg does not feel pain without it having a central nervous system, so it doesn't matter. It is not aware at all of its own existence, being conscious arises from a fully formed nervous system, made up of many cells. A fertilized egg is one cell (or two technically? I don't know), that can not detect itself. That doesn't happen for a few months, so there is a window where aborting is ethical. It is undoubtedly sad to waste a potential human life that is so close to fruition, but it is not unethical. Unethical is, as I said, what we do to our food animals, who are fully formed in their central nervous system... they are not made in God's image, so it doesn't matter. Christianity is so dumb. It produces more immorality than it pretends to put aside.

My point went right over your head. Figures.

Moron. It isn't "a potential human life", it is human from the moment it is conceived. It doesn't "become more human"; it has everything it needs right from the get go. It goes through stages of development but it is a living human from beginning. Your rambling highlights the pro-choice meme beautifully . . . "de-humanize" the thing and poof! no problem destroying it.

Sick.

so feel free to make your own choices.

stay out of others'.

it's not that complicated.

Pro-choice is about a woman's choice to end the life of another human. Got it.