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.

 

GOP Controlled Virginia Legislature Passes Two Of The Most Restrictive Anti-Abortion Bills In The Na

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by goldcoin
 




As if we don't have enough homeless children and children living in foster homes already. This bill will FORCE women who don't want to have a child (even rape victims) to keep that child. It's absolutely ridiculous!


Um... (tap, tap, tap). Excuse me.

What about (trumpets blowing), personal responsibility towards procreation? In easier terms, why not just NOT go out and spawn without proper birth control? I mean, it is everywhere for both genders now. There is no real excuse... none at all, for unwanted pregnancy.

Yeah. Personal responsibility... where we take charge of our lives and know that there are consequences for stupidity?

Nah. That's just silly. It's up to the state to make sure we behave.

My bad. Carry on.




posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen
 

That's your opinion and I respect your right to believe it. I disagree, however, and see abortion as no different than any other act of murder.

I guess that's what makes this issue and this legislation so contentious.

On a personal level as a christian, I agree with you and act accordingly as per my faith - but on a political/public level as a citizen of the United States (founded on the constitution, not the bible), I have to act accordingly...I'm much the same way with war. My faith tells me that violence and killing are wrong, under any circumstances, and as such I will not participate in it - I will be a conscientious objector; but I will recognize the nation's right to Just War in light of the fact that we live in the world in which we do.

I do also acknowledge that I may be wrong due to a limited understanding, granted.

Regardless, my concern in the matter is overall harm reduction and best outcome, and that applies across the board to so many other issues that effect christian liberty, the will of god, and the god-given rights of people. We can get hung up on abortion, or we can look at everything as a whole and realize that our thinking on one matter may negatively impact our proper redress of a more substantial number of others.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
For everyone who thinks that an unborn child doesn't count as a living "person", then what about the times people are punished for killing a pregnant woman, and they get 2 counts of murder against them...both the mother and the unborn child?

To me, we can't have it both ways. We shouldn't be able to selectively consider an unborn child to be a "life" when it is convenient to us.

Unfortunately, though, it IS all about convenience, isn't it?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   


§ 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.


so, what happens when the rights of the unborn severely opposes the rights of the mother who is carrying it??
ya know, like the medicine that is keeping mom mentally stable is going to kill the child...or ya, the child has over a 50% chance of living, but well, mom will have to be bedridden for 6 of those months... or mom will lose her eyesight if she carries the baby???

so, reckon, just what age will the little girls be stripped of their rights??
once they reach childbearing age (I mean, who knows, they might do something during the time that they get pregnant that might harm their child), or once the child is concieved??
I bet they will only strip the rights of those women they have to, like the ones who find themselves to be in a situtation similar to those I mentioned....better to keep most of the women believing that they still have their rights!!!



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
This issue is not as simple as "women's rights to choose."

It all depends upon your definition of human life. For many, abortion is the murder of an unborn baby. To them, it's the same thing as killing a newborn baby would be...it's killing a person. We would never allow someone to kill a newborn, no matter what the circumstances. To many, there is no difference between a newborn and the unborn.

You may not agree with that definition of life, but for those that feel that life exists at conception, it is a real issue.


all restraints are designed to enslave in this case the enslaved are women.
i have said it before and will do so again:

if you want to have a child and are a man you will need a woman's consent, any thing else is RAPE.
pricking holes in your condom, switching a ladies pills, and other dirty tricks designed to knock up a woman and/or insisting on/forcing the woman to carry the baby to term is RAPE.

religious: life and personhood begin at conception [article of faith ergo, NO PROOF]***

science: life and personhood begin when brainwaves are 1st detected

If you mean consciousness, then there is some debate over that, as well. Brain waves first become detectable at around 16 weeks development, so a fetus cannot possibly have consciousness before then.* However, it is unlikely that there could be a full consciousness for some weeks after that; it's generally only after week 20 or so that the fetus responds to sounds and has a startle reflex, and the brain waves which *can* be detected at this point are most like the brainwaves that are displayed during deep sleep or dream states.

Even after a baby is born, the first few months are likely to be very fuzzy and unfocused. This represents a very rapid period of brain growth, with synaptic connections being formed every day. During this period of time, however, the senses (especially vision) are still maturing, and almost everything in a baby's brain is focused around immediate sensory input, and making it into something relatively stable and coherent. It is nothing at all like the consciousness displayed by adults or even older children -- however, it is a form of consciousness. At this point it just comes down to individuals arguing over definitions.

---------------
Side note: Almost every pro-life website and resource on the planet carries the claim that brain activity is detectable in week 6, or at around 40 days. This is based on a single paper which was published in 1964, which claimed to have measured EEG activity in the fetus at day 40 (H. Hamlin, "Life or Death by EEG," JAMA, Oct. 12, 1964). What is not mentioned is that this paper was discredited very soon after by some medical students who, using the same equipment and setup, measured brainwaves in a bowl of Jell-o.

It is, in fact, not possible for there to be brain waves at 6 weeks because there is not yet a "brain"; the embryo at week 6 is generally about an inch long and wouldn't even fill a teaspoon, and the cells which will become the brain have not yet differentiated to neurons and glia, there are no synapses or dendrites (thus no possibility of synaptic connections), and the fetus is producing no neurotransmitters at this stage. In reality, this claim has to be disregarded; there is no physical structure present which would allow brain waves to exist.

Read more: When do babies/fetuses get a conscience? (is that how u spell it?) | Answerbag www.answerbag.com...


according to various mystical teachings: life and personhood begin at the 7th month in the womb, the fetus being fully formed by then

according to other doctrines a human being's spirit does not fully incarnate
until the late 20's 28 being a common number cited

i think any intelligent and freedom loving human beings are NOT going to give any kind of credibility to the 1st group especially when they are known prevaricators [a sin, btw] The Truth About Anti-abortion Pictures of Alleged Aborted Fetuses

***sometimes i think those against contraception and a woman's choice, subconsciously fear/know that without these restrictions they would have been 1st in line to be aborted.

some people love their chains
however they have no right to force others into their chosen slavery



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

I just read the bill in question on the websited linked from the article, and it said nothing about contraceptives...



The Democrats tried to add language to the bill specifying that it would not apply to contraceptives but were voted down by the Republicans.

As far as "life" beginning at conception, why stop there? It would be very difficult to argue that a sperm isn't "alive." Or an egg cell.

Most people would not want late term abortions of viable babies for convenience sake. Most people do not think it is wrong to abort in the first trimester. We have to find some middle ground.

By the by, I can't understand why the Republicans are trying to make an issue of this in a big election year. They must be totally politically tone deaf. Virginia is a swing state now. They already have a huge problem with women voters, there is over 15 percent effective unemployment and they appear to be running on contraception lately. It makes no sense.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
*shakes fist*
Curse you! Curse you pesky little 10th Ammendment that allows states to choose. Curse the laws that give freedom to people in states to determine what laws they'll have!

We just need to get rid of the whole damned constitution right now!

What were these people thinking!?!?!?!?!

Are they trying to self-determine or something?



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
*shakes fist*
Curse you! Curse you pesky little 10th Ammendment that allows states to choose. Curse the laws that give freedom to people in states to determine what laws they'll have!

We just need to get rid of the whole damned constitution right now!

What were these people thinking!?!?!?!?!

Are they trying to self-determine or something?


It looks like they're trying to politically self-destruct anyway. Unless they have some magical plan to win statewide without Northern Virginia.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by beezzer
*shakes fist*
Curse you! Curse you pesky little 10th Ammendment that allows states to choose. Curse the laws that give freedom to people in states to determine what laws they'll have!

We just need to get rid of the whole damned constitution right now!

What were these people thinking!?!?!?!?!

Are they trying to self-determine or something?


It looks like they're trying to politically self-destruct anyway. Unless they have some magical plan to win statewide without Northern Virginia.


It'll come down to the people. If the people decide that this is a good thing, then it'll stay. If the people decide it's a bad thing? Then it all goes away and the pro-killing unborn baby crowd can stop hyperventilating.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Look up the aftermath of the black death/plague and how it correlates to the bill of rights, the emanzipation of the bottom classes and the rise of the middle class, then you will understand why those in power care very much about keeping the population growing or at least at a constant high level.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by goldcoin
 


Anybody who thinks these laws are being passed out of real care for the lives on fetuses needs to get acquanted with how the U.S political system really works. The GOP are just trying to appeal to their constituency, and hey, once that kid is born, it's bye bye medicaid and welfare, because apparently their mothers (raped, underaged etc) either need to be working, or they need to give these kids up for adoption to be a further burden to the State, and possibly be motherless and fatherless for much of their childhood.

Doesn't make much sense to me, but 'personal morals' outweigh reality here, or real concern about the people immediately affected.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
For everyone who thinks that an unborn child doesn't count as a living "person", then what about the times people are punished for killing a pregnant woman, and they get 2 counts of murder against them...both the mother and the unborn child?


This is specifically do with laws and in many cases the media, it doesn't represent the personal opinions of everybody. I don't believe a fertilized egg is an actual human being.


To me, we can't have it both ways. We shouldn't be able to selectively consider an unborn child to be a "life" when it is convenient to us.


This isn't merely for the sake of convenience at all. I believe a fertilized egg is the beginning of human life, that doesn't mean I think it's a human being. You can't grant a fertilized egg with all the right of a human being, for starters, it is beyond reality to expect laws and regulations to protect them in the same manner as grown human beings, you can't. The pregnant woman is in complete control of her body, what she eats, what she does, will heavily impact on how that fertilized egg develops. Nature gave her the ability to do this, you cannot expect law enforcement to change this reality or control, it simply isn't going to happen. If you expect demonizing these woman will make a difference? You should look to history before Roe v Wade.

Do you know what would be a more effective and efficient way to spend time as a 'pro-lifer'? By educating women on the advantages of carrying on with pregnancy, by supporting single mothers, rape victims, parents of children who have suffered unspeakable crimes. All this would be more productive and positive, as opposed to demonizing women who consider these choices, and making yourself out to be the enemy.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
It's no coincidence GOP legislatures in several states are all pushing this issue now, they are desperately pandering to the extremists in their base, in one last ditch measure to stay in power.

That's why they're pushing for the "social issues" like forcible parenthood on rape victims, "personhood", contraception and "teh gay", so they can motivate the crazies to go to the polls and vote against their best interests (as usual).

Forget about rebuilding America, no, let's get all patriarchal on the women.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   

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

At conception the egg is nothing more than a clump of blank cells being programmed by the chromosomes. It isn't even until the 24th week that the thalamo-cortical complex develops which allows consciousness. Before that a fetus is as much a person as a tapeworm. Hell, even up until the 23rd week the fetus can't live outside of the womb even with medical assistance, even then it only has a 50% chance of survival.



Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
For everyone who thinks that an unborn child doesn't count as a living "person", then what about the times people are punished for killing a pregnant woman, and they get 2 counts of murder against them...both the mother and the unborn child?

To me, we can't have it both ways. We shouldn't be able to selectively consider an unborn child to be a "life" when it is convenient to us.

Unfortunately, though, it IS all about convenience, isn't it?

Being murdered isn't a choice. Having an abortion is. The woman who was assaulted/murdered and lost her pregnancy did not chose to be assaulted/murdered and to abort the pregnancy. Nor is the assaulter/murdered a licensed practitioner capable of performing an abortion.

Your argument is like saying "if people are allowed to be executed by a firing squad then if someone shoots someone else why are they punished?"
edit on 2/19/2012 by SG-17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
Those who are pro life will applaud this legislation. Those who are pro choice will criticize it.



Not necessarily.

Some "Life" people understand "Right of Choice".



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
umm.....

every fetus has the right to a healthy womb...therefore, the laws should have the right to ensure that every women of child bearing age is as fit and healthy as possible...
no more unhealthy foods, no more lounging on that couch, all women must have a membership to their local ymca and participate in an exercise program three times a week...

all women of child bearing age must be restricted as to what medicines she is allowed to take...got a migraine?? tough it out. need those pills there to keep your mental stability? well, sorry, guess we're gonna have to hospitalize you...since that medicine would harm an unborn fetus if you happened to create one while on the medicine....
and of course, every fetus has the right to a drug free developemental stage!!!

they need less stress also!! so well, all women of child bearing age must reduce the amount of stress in their lives!!!

in plain simple words...
how does the rights of the mother end, and the rights of the fetus take over!!!
because if the mother's rights don't supercede the fetus', well, we have a situation where every women of child bearing age could lose their most basic rights!
ya know, people...the slippery slope and all that!!!
edit on 19-2-2012 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
New GOP rallying cry..."Don't let anything come between a doctor and patient...except a transvaginal ultrasound!"

A headline for the second bill, that the Virginia governor said he would sign, could be, "Virginia GOP Bill Mandates Rape of Female Patients". Mr. McDonnell, do you understand that the bill amounts to rape with an object? What part of unwanted penetration with a foreign object do you not understand? You would want government to mandate female rape?

Mr. McDonnell, would you mandate a probe for men who want an ED prescription? Seriously, the GOP misogynist attitude and authoritarianism must be stopped. I've seen this buildup for over 30 years, to where the middle class has been taken advantage of and now Virginia wants to take advantage of women in a most unseemly way.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Is this an example of GOP's less government? Things like Homeland Security, TSA, Patriot Act... and the ever-sought reduction of women's rights. I'm a little scared of just how much more 'less' GOP wants to go.

And is this what religion is about? Reducing women's rights? I have an idea. Instead of focusing on the destructive nature of abortion and contraceptives. Why don't we set our crosshairs on religion itself. Christian, Islam... they're the same thing... left to their own devices, they'll make women subservient and all laws tailored to their beliefs. People need to stop seeing the 'good' in church the way a junkie sees the 'good' in heroine. It's destructive, divisive, and controlling, and is completely false in it's claimed truths. Time to let it go so we can be better people.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
And now you have Santorum saying that prenatal testing encourages abortion.

Are these guys total idiots or do they just play them on TV?

There are significantly more female than male voters and this culture war stuff is not going to help the GOP at all.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
www.roanoke.com...

well, the laws didn't get too far......

one of the reasons given for why the personhood bill was set aside for this year was that they were concerned that it would interfer with Invitro....
so, let me get this straight, and I don't want to sound heartless to those who wish to have children but find they cannot...but...
it seems to me, that they want to declare every fetus as a "person" who is endowed with all the constitutional rights of mom, but then again, they want to make sure that they are able to take that "personhood" status away from some, in certain circumstances, when it's convenient for a few??? and of course, I imagine it's a big money maker!!!

the other reason was that they were concerned that it would interfer with the availability of birth control....

okay.....
still no mention of the collision of mother and baby's rights, and the effects that superceding mom's right might for the baby's when it comes to certain health concerns pop up....
like are you really gonna force a mother who is sole caretaker of a child or two, or more to remain bedridden for months on end, based on the rights of the unborn?? na, perventing pregnancy, that's important!!! giving pregnancy through artificial means, ya, that's important...
mom??? na, she isn't important....

at least that's what I am reading.....




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join