It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
On Tuesday, the Virginia House of Representatives passed two of the most restrictive abortion bills in the country. By a vote of 66-32, the Republican majority passed House Bill 1, which defines personhood as beginning at conception and effectively bans any woman from having an abortion, even if she is raped. The bill also would restrict contraceptives and an amendment to the bill would allow civil lawsuits against any doctor that performs an abortion. The bill is by far the most restrictive bill passed by any Republican controlled legislature in many years. Republican Rep. Bob Marshall wrote the legislation.
Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by goldcoin
...prohibition of something that people *will* simply find a way to do as demand likely won't go away just won't work. End of story.
Originally posted by SoymilkAlaska
reply to post by goldcoin
so they aren't even allowed to use a condom?
Originally posted by SoymilkAlaska
reply to post by goldcoin
this is messed up.
" The bill also would restrict contraceptives?"
so they aren't even allowed to use a condom?
WOW...?edit on 15-2-2012 by SoymilkAlaska because: (no reason given)edit on 15-2-2012 by SoymilkAlaska because: (no reason given)
HOUSE BILL NO. 1
A BILL to construe the word "person" under Virginia law, including but not limited to § 8.01-50 of the Code of Virginia, to include unborn children.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. § 1. The life of each human being begins at conception.
§ 2. Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being.
§ 3. The natural parents of unborn children have protectable interests in the life, health, and well-being of their unborn child.
§ 4. The laws of this Commonwealth shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this Commonwealth, subject only to the Constitution of the United States and decisional interpretations thereof by the United States Supreme Court and specific provisions to the contrary in the statutes and constitution of this Commonwealth.
§ 5. As used in this section, the term "unborn children" or "unborn child" shall include any unborn child or children or the offspring of human beings from the moment of conception until birth at every stage of biological development.
§ 6. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care.
§ 7. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as affecting lawful assisted conception.
By that logic, every law from homicide to theft is pointless then?
Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
Those who are pro life will applaud this legislation. Those who are pro choice will criticize it. Obviously, this is a very polarizing issue and the legislation will no doubt be challenged in the courts.
For the record, I am a firm believer that life begins at conception and that all, above all else, have the right to life.
The only recourse women in this state have is the federal government and Roe v Wade. Ron Paul would use his power to take that away and give women NO recourse but to move to another state. Plus he would invite every state to make their own rules about abortion.
THIS is the problem with Ron Paul. As it is now, women in Virginia can go to the federal government to protect their right. Thankfully.
Don't talk to me about the low probabilities of abortion being outlawed.
Originally posted by Praetorius
How many abortions are each woman planning to have, or how long are these abortions expected to last? There are things I can't legally or get here at home in Oklahoma, but I haven't had any problem taking a trip to get or do them legally elsewhere -
and in the case of the abortion debate, there are other alternatives anyway such as safe haven laws, adoption, release of the child to the state, etc.
Even if something like these laws DID somehow stand up to challenge for any length of time, there would always be options
I'm sorry, I still can't get behind this as the law likely won't last long,
We will have to continue to agree to disagree on the weights and measures involved here.
Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen
By that logic, every law from homicide to theft is pointless then?
No, as those are clear and incontrovertible offenses against another indisputable person, their property, or their liberty, and don't involve the internal workings of the body of the person committing the crime.
The waters with abortion are much muddier, more debated, and infinitely more personal. I don't think an issue can get much more complicated - and I feel the more complicated an issue is, the closer to home it should be handled.
But I would like to point out that what I originally said is true even with your examples - homicide and theft have pretty much always been illegal, and they still happen (and always will, until hearts & minds are changed on the whole). The laws are in good part also to help assign punishment (call it what you want - justice, fine) - unless there is some clear malice involved, we're going to punish criminally mothers who won't carry their children to term? Will we now subject every miscarriage to criminal investigation to determine if there's any legal transgression?
This is one of those things I'll continue to talk to people about and try to provide very good alternatives to, but beyond that have to leave it between them & god.
Originally posted by Thingol
Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
Those who are pro life will applaud this legislation. Those who are pro choice will criticize it. Obviously, this is a very polarizing issue and the legislation will no doubt be challenged in the courts.
For the record, I am a firm believer that life begins at conception and that all, above all else, have the right to life.
I fully agree.....
What I don't understand is......how is that a belief? To me it's fact. Can someone explain how life doesn't begin at conception??.....I can't see the other side of this coin at all
That's really not anyone's business, nor is it relevant. The next state could make it illegal, too. And the next and the next.
And the woman would still be forced to risk her life against her will to carry and bear a child she doesn't want.
Yes. It's called back alley and botched abortion.
I'm not inclined to feel comforted - you said the likelihood of this happening was slim to none.
What we apparently disagree on is the autonomy of a woman.