AZ passes law saying life beings pre-conception

[BDBoop]

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

Way to showcase your bigotry there, skippy.

Bitch, please. Christians are FINE with murdering innocents, once they're out of the uterus.

 

[koshergrl]

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

Way to showcase your bigotry there, skippy.

Bitch, please. Christians are FINE with murdering innocents, once they're out of the uterus.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Way to showcase your bigotry there, skippy.

Most self-identified Christians are not opposed to murdering innocents. They would not have supported any of our wars if that were true.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Pro-choice is the allowance of choice and individual liberty. Isn't that what this country is all about? How can you want to limit choice in the name of your specific religion and still call yourself an american? It's so hypocritical and preposterous. I understand you want to do something good, and I don't like abortion either, and I'm an atheist, but you have to give people that CHOICE. You do not get to decide for other people because you believe your religion is true. Have some respect for other people's beliefs. A bunch of cells is not a human. It is potential, but not a feeling, breathing human. I don't know at what point it is acceptable to terminate that potential, but there is a point, and it is past conception, and before the nervous system is fully formed, in my opinion. (late-term abortions should not be allowed in my opinion, except under extreme cicrumstances)

I personally do not believe in abortion...but I respect those that feel it is invasive to their choices to ban it, so my tolerance for the beliefs of others has me supporting the pro choice side.

However....the question is not really about choice. It is, and has always been, whether or not abortion is murder...whuich stems from "when does life begin."

now...you say "a bunch of cells" is not a human life.....I agree.

However...if that "bunch of cells" is dependant upon a human being to grow...via the umbilical chord/placenta....then maybe it is not just a bunch of cells?

Look at it this way.....what other than a human being requires human antibodies and human blood cells to survive?

So you see, it is not just the religious right that feel that way...many form a science background see a fetus as a human being...from a scientific standpoint.

Unless, of course, you can cite what other than a lviing human requires human antibodies to survive....

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.

 

[Mustang]

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

I'm getting a flash back to concepts from before, during, and after, medieval times.

This reminds me VERY much about the concept of the Homunculus regarding early concepts of what constituted human development after conception and prior to birth.

Preformationism, a philosophical theory of heredity, claimed that either the egg or the sperm (exactly which was a contentious issue) contained a complete preformed individual called a homunculus. Development was therefore a matter of enlarging this into a fully formed being.
The term homunculus was later used in the discussion of conception and birth, Nicolas Hartsoeker discovered "animalcules" in the semen of humans and other animals. This was the beginning of spermists' theory, who held the belief that the sperm was in fact a "little man" (homunculus) that was placed inside a woman for growth into a child. This seemed to them to neatly explain many of the mysteries of conception. It was later pointed out that if the sperm was a homunculus, identical in all but size to an adult, then the homunculus may have sperm of its own. This led to a reductio ad absurdum with a chain of homunculi "all the way down". This was not necessarily considered by spermists a fatal objection however, as it neatly explained how it was that "in Adam" all had sinned: the whole of humanity was already contained in his loins. The spermists' theory also failed to explain why children tend to resemble their mothers as well as their fathers, though some spermists believed that the growing homunculus assimilated maternal characteristics from the womb environment in which they grew.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus#cite_note-1

Homunculi in sperm as drawn by N. Hartsoecker in 1695



Homunculus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Preformationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Navy1960]

More of what the Law actually say's;

B. For these reasons, the legislature's purposes in promulgating this
37 act include to:
38 1. Prohibit abortions at or after twenty weeks of gestation, except in
39 cases of a medical emergency, based on the documented risks to women's health
40 and the strong medical evidence that unborn children feel pain during an
41 abortion at that gestational age.

This act does not establish or recognize a right to an abortion and
10 does not make lawful an abortion that is currently unlawful.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/hb2036s.pdf

 

[koshergrl]

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

Way to showcase your bigotry there, skippy.

Most self-identified Christians are not opposed to murdering innocents. They would not have supported any of our wars if that were true.

Logical fallacy.

As was the initial reference by pooper.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Way to showcase your bigotry there, skippy.

Since God is eventually going to put an end to the human race, what's the difference?

 

[koshergrl]

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

Way to showcase your bigotry there, skippy.

Since God is eventually going to put an end to the human race, what's the difference?

Another logical fallacy.

 

[Clementine]

Clementine -- notice how they ignore your posts? That's how they keep spewing the lies about this, they ignore the truth.

I noticed and I believe it proves what I was saying. Either it goes over their heads or they just don't want to understand the truth or acknowledge that their thinking is flawed as they attack the language in the bill.

 

[Inthemiddle]

They're not 'redefining' when life starts, they're using the exact same method that obs use.



Pregnancy Due Date Calculator : American Pregnancy Association

How can you be sure how far along the pregnancy is when ovulation/conception (oh, sorry Jillian, fertilization) takes place? Ovulation is not a definite; the first day of your last period is which is why obs use that as the starting point.

A vaginal ultrasound would eliminate any guesswork as to how far the pregnancy has progressed. But the left claims that's too invasive. And here I thought you guys were all for education.

Why even bother pointing out facts, you pro-abortion types only care about the women and would be fine ripping the unborn out and destroying them at any point.

It is too invasive. It's pretty close to rape.

Well, that was quick.

The problem is that there is no reason for the government to be making laws that will dictate such nuances of a doctor doing his job. How necessary is the extra precision? What is gained in the grand scheme of things? Is it really that important to know EXACTLY how far along the pregnancy is that we NEED laws to require invasive procedures for that purpose? What's accomplished in it? Are we afraid that "OMG, that abortion took place 1 day too late!"? Personally, I find it sufficient to allow doctors to do their job within their own expertise, and let them discuss with their patients the various options available for whatever circumstance is relevant to that particular patient. There's no need for the government to be acting like NFL referees, trying to measure out the last few inches to decide whether or not to award a 1st down.

 

[Navy1960]

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. James Madison

Rep. Catherine Miranda

“I feel all life is sacred. I firmly believe that how we legislate on abortion reflects the moral values of society, respect for life and dignity of all human beings is a core value of my beliefs. All of us have to answer to our constituent s every two years when we faced with getting re-elected, but as I have previously stated on the floor, after we leave this legislature, all of us must answer to a higher authority, and with that I vote yes.

“… all of us have to answer to our constituents every two years when we face re-election, but … ultimately, after we leave this legislature, all of us must answer to a higher authority. Mr. Speaker, I vote yes.”


This is why these types of laws have no place in society as I am sure none of our legislators took the time to read the 1st Amendment, had they done so they would have discovered that the "higher authority" the Rep. was talking about holds many different views depending on which religion your talking to. So then you look back to James Madison and the framers who had it right the first time, these issues bleong in the hearts and minds of people not the laws.

 

[BDBoop]

I couldn't help noticing that not one person has yet to address a doctor being able to lie to his/her patient being legalized, and leaving the parents no recourse.

 

[koshergrl]

It's laughable that vaginal ultrasound conducted to ensure accuracy is "too invasive" but the abortion itself is A-OK.

What complete crap.

 

[koshergrl]

I couldn't help noticing that not one person has yet to address a doctor being able to lie to his/her patient being legalized, and leaving the parents no recourse.

They haven't addressed it because you failed miserably in your attempt to prove that was actually happening. It's not worth a response.

Hence the

 

[BDBoop]

Okay. Research/reading is not your strong suit. I shall spoon feed you.

Format Document

As transmitted to, and signed by, Gov Jan Brewer.

OVERVIEW
SB 1359 establishes that a person is not liable for damages in any civil action on a claims that, but for an act or omission of the defendant, specified individuals would not or should not have been born.

HISTORY
A wrongful birth claim is a claim brought on behalf of the parents for wrongful birth based on the defendant’s failure to diagnose or inform the mother that a fetus was in genetic difficulty. Courts that have recognized the wrongful birth claims have allowed a recovery for some of the expenses of rearing the child (See Dobbs on Torts, Prenatal Injury § 288-289 (2000)).

An action for "wrongful life" is brought by or on behalf of the infant who suffers from a genetic or congenital disorder. The child claims that medical personnel failed to accurately perform genetic screening prior to conception, to correctly inform the prospective parents of the hereditary nature of certain genetic disorders, to accurately advise the parents during pregnancy concerning the genetic risk or to perform a surgical procedure intended to prevent the birth of a congenitally or genetically defective child. The essence of the claim is that the medical professional's breach of the applicable standard of care precluded an informed parental decision to avoid the child's conception or birth.

A cause of action for wrongful life was first considered in a 1967 New Jersey case, Gleitman v. Cosgrove, 49 N.J. 22, 227 A.2d 689, 22 A.L.R.3d 1411 (1967), which refused to recognize the action. Since that time, the action has been recognized in a number of jurisdictions, including New Jersey (See www.westlaw.com; 23 Causes of Action 2d 55).

PROVISIONS
· Establishes that a person is not liable for damages in any civil action on a claims that, but for an act or omission of the defendant, the following individuals would not or should not have been born:
Ø A child or children;
Ø The person bringing the action.

· Asserts that this section applies to any claim regardless whether the child is born healthy or with a birth defect or other adverse medical condition.

· Exempts civil actions for damages for an intentional or grossly negligent act or omission, including an act or omission that violates a criminal law.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, I already addressed it.

Removing liability for wrongful birth is not the same as "allowing the doctor to lie".

Two. Different. Things.

 

[BDBoop]

It's laughable that vaginal ultrasound conducted to ensure accuracy is "too invasive" but the abortion itself is A-OK.

What complete crap.

Okay, next time you show up for a sore throat, take all your clothes off.

NO. They came in for an abortion. They agreed to an abortion. They are now being forced to jump through a million self-righteous hoops which congress should absolutely NOT be legislating, because the right wing is full of self-righteous shit.

 

[BDBoop]

Yeah, I already addressed it.

Removing liability for wrongful birth is not the same as "allowing the doctor to lie".

Two. Different. Things.

The doctor can lie. No harm will befall him. NOT 'two different things.'

And they sure as shit didn't need to legislate it.

 

[koshergrl]

Not. The. Same. Thing.

You're on a roll.

But that's what liars do. They never confine their misrepresentations to one subject.