To protest a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion, Virginia State Sen. Janet Howell (D-Fairfax) on Monday attached an amendment that would require men to have a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication.
"We need some gender equity here," she told HuffPost. "The Virginia senate is about to pass a bill that will require a woman to have totally unnecessary medical procedure at their cost and inconvenience. If we're going to do that to women, why not do that to men?"

The Republican-controlled senate narrowly rejected the amendment Monday by a vote of 21 to 19, but passed the mandatory ultrasound bill in a voice vote. A similar bill in Texas, which physicians say has caused a "bureaucratic nightmare," is currently being challenged in court.

Howell said she is not surprised her amendment failed.
"This is more of a message type of an amendment, so I was pleased to get 19 votes," she said.

She pointed out that there are only seven women in the Virginia senate, and six of them voted in favor of her amendment, along with 13 male senators. Sen. Jill Vogel (R-Fauquier County), the sponsor of the mandatory ultrasound bill, voted against it.

“I do believe that erectile dysfunction in this context is different from pregnancy,” she said on the senate floor.
The Senate will formally vote on the mandatory ultrasound bill on Tuesday.

Yeah, erectile dysfunction is different. If you've got that problem, you aren't creating the other one.

Maybe if the expectant mother sees it's tiny little baby inside her tummy..SHE MAY NOT KILL IT.

RealityCheck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A similar bill in Texas, which physicians
> say has caused a "bureaucratic nightmare," is
> currently being challenged in court.
>

How tragic! Cue the violins.

The principles of limited government and individual liberty demand this.

If we had tax incentives for abortions we'd save a 100 billion.

All of this is unconstitutional.

Redhots Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All of this is unconstitutional.


So true. What happened to limited government? Screw them for making any requirements on reproductive rights.

Keep your hands off my penis and rectum. Thanks!

Liberal logic: YOu can kill your child at will if its inconvenient, ending someone else's life, but you can't smoke a cigarette in a bar you are the OWNER of.

I LOVE JANET HOWELL, what a great idea, if men had babies then abortions would be offered at a drive thru with free fries with that.

liberalinsanity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal logic: YOu can kill your child at will if
> its inconvenient, ending someone else's life, but
> you can't smoke a cigarette in a bar you are the
> OWNER of.

Libtards just don't understand what limited government means. A man should be able to smoke a cigarette wherever he damn well pleases. If a chick gets raped and pregnant, the state must defend the fetus. But once its born, the state has no right to help provide medical care for the mother and forced child. That is socialism. Jesus can help them, not my tax money.

RR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> liberalinsanity Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Liberal logic: YOu can kill your child at will
> if
> > its inconvenient, ending someone else's life,
> but
> > you can't smoke a cigarette in a bar you are
> the
> > OWNER of.
>
> Libtards just don't understand what limited
> government means. A man should be able to smoke a
> cigarette wherever he damn well pleases. If a
> chick gets raped and pregnant, the state must
> defend the fetus. But once its born, the state
> has no right to help provide medical care for the
> mother and forced child. That is socialism.
> Jesus can help them, not my tax money.

Oh here we go with the rape card again.

Of the 1.5-2 million abortions performed last year in the US, I wonder how many of those were from rape victims?

And I wonder how many were from reckless/irresponsible morons too lazy and/or stupid to use birth control?

Get of jail free card Wrote:


> Oh here we go with the rape card again.
>
> Of the 1.5-2 million abortions performed last year
> in the US, I wonder how many of those were from
> rape victims?
>
> And I wonder how many were from
> reckless/irresponsible morons too lazy and/or
> stupid to use birth control?


I agree. As a firm believer in limited government, I believe the state should mandate those stupid lazy bitches suffer the consequences of their irresponsible decisions to not use birth control. Just don't expect me to pay for their brats with my tax dollars.

as a firm believer in "limited government" keep your nose out of my ovaries. And if memory serves me from middle school health class, it also takes a "stupid lazy bastard" to make an unwanted fetus, he should pay for the consequences not using birth control and have his penis castrated, that will teach him not to do that again. and it should be paid for with tax dollars!!!

Well the law just requires woman to get an ultrasound, not look at the pictures or listen to the heart beat.

Basically a Republican bullshit healthcare mandate trying to force religious views.

Thanks republicans for more BS government regulations and telling the citizens of Virginia how they must live their life.

Shouldn't there be a medical purpose for a government forced medical procedure? If the purpose is religious, then wouldn't that be unconstitutional? What is the rationale that they have in the bill for this procedure? Abortion is still a legal medical procedure in the US. If they come up with a medical rationale, it may be that ultrasounds will be required for other procedures as well.

The people who are against reproductive freedom are the same ones who are against sex education. It doesn't make one bit of sense.

I guess they just want to create a whole new generation of poor dumb people to hate on.

Don't they have better shit to? The politicians all campaign on JOBS, EDUCATION, AND TRANSPORTATION but once they get in office, shoving their own hangups down everyone's throat is their number one priority.

I call bullshit.

People who are going to have abortions are going to get them. They are getting them for a reason. Many people (including these politicians) may oppose abortion on religious grounds. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the deities that these opposes believe in punish the couples that get abortions, as apposed to restricting their ability to get one here on earth?

You mean RICH women who are going to get safe abortions will get them. It's poor women that will be left to roll the dice with a coat-hanger in an alley.

Politicians know damn well that when their own little princess has an uh-oh, she will get the... um... "care" that she needs.


why?!? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People who are going to have abortions are going
> to get them.

Ok this is a feel good bill. The new law would be that the clinic has to do it but the mother doesn't have to see or hear it. If the poster child of Roe v Wade regrets her abortion than obviously it's not something to be entered into lightly. For some seeing the ultrasound might make a difference. The reality is who is going to enforce it? What if the clinic never does one for anybody. I had a family member killed at the abortion clinic off of Duke St. The doctor was practicing after her license was revoked. Clearly nobody makes sure these places are on the up and up. I don't agree with abortion but I think if the law says it's their choice than it should be a little harder than getting your teeth cleaned. You have to wait 24 hours to get a gun but if you want to kill your offspring just sit here and drive yourself home. Unless we give you too much anesthia like they did in her case. My 15 year old needs an act of congress to take cold medicine in school but she could go there and have a surgical procedure I know nothing about. Makes no sense at all.

It makes no sense because you are not being honest (or maybe you are just misinformed). These discussions are worth having but please, spare us the rhetoric.

Reality Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My 15 year
> old needs an act of congress to take cold medicine
> in school but she could go there and have a
> surgical procedure I know nothing about. Makes no
> sense at all.

It's not rhetoric. She couldn't take tylenol in school without permission from me but could get an abortion. That is the current law. Did you have a point?

Right wing republicans are such hypocrites- you want "small government" but you want government in your body parts. Having an unwanted fetus is not only expensive it denegrates the quality of our civilization, they are not taken care of...anyone who wants an abortion should have one, should not cost a penny unless some moron right winger wants to pay for its healthcare and education as growing up. To require an ultrasound is stupid and more republican BS pitching to religious wing nuts. Most should have already been mandatorily aborted anyway.

If you were a good parent, you'd be there for your daughter. If she needs to hide from you there is a problem.

Your poor parenting skills probably bear some responsability for your situation.

Repressive, overbearing, conservative families tend to cause the occasional sexual rebellions. Thank the sweet baby Jesus that in America, it's possible to take care of your mess safely and professionally.

If Jesus was around he'd be pro-choice.

I hope all the good folks of Virginia who are against abortion are FOR birth control. Can't we all agree that the best way to diminish the number of abortions is to lessen the number of unwanted pregnancies? Problem is, the so-called "pro" life lobby is typically anti-birth control. They are also against the morning after pill, etc. There is a move afoot not to cover birth control via health care plans, but somehow we allow Viagra? Give me a break....

No one likes abortions. I am pro-choice but personally would not have chosen to have one (at least I think not), however I cannot tell other women what to do with their bodies and what choices they should make given circumstances. Men conveniently seem to ignore their role in creating these fetuses and unless more is done to tackle that side of things, we won't ever make progress.

RealityCheck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A similar bill in Texas, which physicians
> say has caused a "bureaucratic nightmare," is
> currently being challenged in court.

I don't understand why liberals are against this bill.

They love creating "bureaucratic nightmares". Its kind of their thing.

>Maybe if the expectant mother sees it's tiny little baby inside her tummy..SHE MAY NOT KILL IT.

Nicely done 1960.

Maybe if all "expectant" moms and dads who can't keep it in their pants-would learn to do so, we wouldn't need abortions, but as it is this society cannot afford unwanted humans walking the earth, they are expensive, and degrade our lives. I have had an abortion and it is the most mature thing I have ever done, I now have three children-all in ivy league colleges because I planned them, could afford them and wanted them and understand that being a parent is the most time intensive and important thing you can do and should not be approach lightly or stupidly. Abort republicans NOW.

Jill Smith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hope all the good folks of Virginia who are
> against abortion are FOR birth control. Can't we
> all agree that the best way to diminish the number
> of abortions is to lessen the number of unwanted
> pregnancies? Problem is, the so-called "pro" life
> lobby is typically anti-birth control. They are
> also against the morning after pill, etc. There
> is a move afoot not to cover birth control via
> health care plans, but somehow we allow Viagra?
> Give me a break....
>

Health care plans covering Viagra is BS too.

I think you'd have a hard time finding someone who is against health care plans covering birth control but in favor of them paying for Viagra.

IMO if private plans want to cover that stuff then fine, but I definitely don't want the gov't paying for any kind of elective procedure or any non-essential prescriptions.

jacksonville Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe if all "expectant" moms and dads who can't
> keep it in their pants-would learn to do so, we
> wouldn't need abortions, but as it is this society
> cannot afford unwanted humans walking the earth,
> they are expensive, and degrade our lives.

What a great point.

We could also save a ton of money and improve quality of life by shooting everyone on welfare.

Puh-leez. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It makes no sense because you are not being honest
> (or maybe you are just misinformed). These
> discussions are worth having but please, spare us
> the rhetoric.
>

No dumbass, that's the truth.

Your child DOES need permission to take cold medicine, Tylenol, etc at school.

That's not true. Here in Virginia, a parent or guardian has to be present in order for an abortion to be performed on someone under the age of 18. Of course a judge can write a waiver for this but I'm sure that is a rare circumstance.


Rhetoric Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not rhetoric. She couldn't take tylenol in
> school without permission from me but could get an
> abortion. That is the current law. Did you have a
> point?

>Maybe if all "expectant" moms and dads who can't keep it in their pants-would learn to do so, we wouldn't need abortions, but as it is this society cannot afford unwanted humans walking the earth, they are expensive, and degrade our lives. I have had an abortion and it is the most mature thing I have ever done, I now have three children-all in ivy league colleges because I planned them, could afford them and wanted them and understand that being a parent is the most time intensive and important thing you can do and should not be approach lightly or stupidly. Abort republicans NOW.

You sound so proud of your three "Ivy League" children -- that's nice. Just think, you could have four in Ivy League schools.

Republican logic:

1) Take away birth control from the poor.
2) Tell the poor they can't have abortions.
3) Put laws in place to make healthcare more expensive for the poor.
4) Bitch about the poor having to many kids.
5) Take away education from poor kids.
6) Charge poor Mom's more in taxes.

Polish it off with "forget about poor Americans. They have a safety net."

Buffy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Republican logic:
>
> 1) Take away birth control from the poor.
> 2) Tell the poor they can't have abortions.
> 3) Put laws in place to make healthcare more
> expensive for the poor.
> 4) Bitch about the poor having to many kids.
> 5) Take away education from poor kids.
> 6) Charge poor Mom's more in taxes.
>
> Polish it off with "forget about poor Americans.
> They have a safety net."

1) Who's taking it away? They just have to pay for it themselves. What a novel idea - YOU want something, YOU pay for it.

2) Sorry. The baby's right to exist trumps the mother's right not to be inconvenienced.

3) Such as? If you mean opposing laws that make the rest of us pay for it, then you're right. Health Insurance costs have INCREASED since Obama Care was passed and will continue to do so. And ideas that will actually lower health care costs such as tort reform and expanding HSA's are almost universally opposed by Democrats.

4) There used to be this crazy concept known as "self-control".

5) Example?

6) I must have missed all those bills that raise taxes exclusively on the poor. Is that why the bottom 47% of the population pay ZERO income taxes?

Um, what that guy said ^^

Conservatards: if you are pro-life, you cannot consider yourself pro-limited government. Simple as that. Also, if they do overturn Roe v. Wade, don't be surprised and start complaining (like you do) when the government starts asking for you to shell out more tax money to effectively police the country for illegal abortion procedures.

Simple Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Conservatards: if you are pro-life, you cannot
> consider yourself pro-limited government.

You wanna expand on that a bit?

The abortion debate has absolutely nothing to do with limited government. And its not about religion either. Its simple morality.

If you're pro-life then the unborn baby is a person and has the same rights and everyone else.

So Abortion = killing the baby = murder = wrong.

Simple argument Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Simple Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Conservatards: if you are pro-life, you cannot
> > consider yourself pro-limited government.
>
> You wanna expand on that a bit?
>
> The abortion debate has absolutely nothing to do
> with limited government. And its not about
> religion either. Its simple morality.
>
> If you're pro-life then the unborn baby is a
> person and has the same rights and everyone else.
>
> So Abortion = killing the baby = murder = wrong.

Actually you can be a conservatard, pro-life and pro-limited government. You just can't be Republican. Maybe Tea Party or Independent.

leon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I LOVE JANET HOWELL, what a great idea, if men had
> babies then abortions would be offered at a drive
> thru with free fries with that.


If men had babies abortion would be a sacrament.

Simple argument Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Simple Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Conservatards: if you are pro-life, you cannot
> > consider yourself pro-limited government.
>
> You wanna expand on that a bit?
>
> The abortion debate has absolutely nothing to do
> with limited government. And its not about
> religion either. Its simple morality.
>
> If you're pro-life then the unborn baby is a
> person and has the same rights and everyone else.
>
> So Abortion = killing the baby = murder = wrong.

Not so, it has everything to do with limited government. But, I'll break it down. Someone who is pro-limited gorvernment is, by denifinition, against government interference in their lives, self, and economy; correct? Those who are pro-life wish to impose a legislative ban on abortion, correct? So therefore, one who considers themselves against the government controlling aspects of their lives and bodies, cannot simultaneously want the government to dictate what other people decide do with their unborn children. Right or wrong, choice or murder; it should not be within the government's authority to decide for them.

jeanny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> as a firm believer in "limited government" keep
> your nose out of my ovaries. And if memory serves
> me from middle school health class, it also takes
> a "stupid lazy bastard" to make an unwanted fetus,
> he should pay for the consequences not using birth
> control and have his penis castrated, that will
> teach him not to do that again. and it should be
> paid for with tax dollars!!!


+10000000000

Simple argument Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Simple Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Conservatards: if you are pro-life, you cannot
> > consider yourself pro-limited government.
>
> You wanna expand on that a bit?
>
> The abortion debate has absolutely nothing to do
> with limited government. And its not about
> religion either. Its simple morality.
>
> If you're pro-life then the unborn baby is a
> person and has the same rights and everyone else.
>
> So Abortion = killing the baby = murder = wrong.


At it's core, abortion is not a moral issue. It's a health issue and an economic issue.

I'm pro-life. I believe that every child should have the right to exist. I support this view by volunteering with my church and community to share the options available for that child, should the mother have the baby. And I have a beautiful child, adopted at birth to reinforce that commitment.

The characterization of women that have abortions as poor sluts and murderers is a gross distortion. My child's birth mother was 15 and she thought that you couldn't get pregnant the first time (no sex ed) and like every other teenager in this country, she and the birthfather had RAGING hormones. Oops. It happens. There are THOUSANDS of reasons why women have abortions. Some are heart wrenching, some are vile, but from what I've witnessed, the majority are undertaken (or not) after much thought, contemplation, prayer and hopefully, support.

Certain religious beliefs call abortion murder. In the Unites States, it is a legal medical procedure. It is also the most personal decision a woman or couple must make - and we might all be better off by offering support pre and hopefully post birth. If you want to save a child from being aborted, offer a solution to the mother instead of calling her a whore.

Breakdown Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Simple argument Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Simple Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Conservatards: if you are pro-life, you
> cannot
> > > consider yourself pro-limited government.
> >
> > You wanna expand on that a bit?
> >
> > The abortion debate has absolutely nothing to
> do
> > with limited government. And its not about
> > religion either. Its simple morality.
> >
> > If you're pro-life then the unborn baby is a
> > person and has the same rights and everyone
> else.
> >
> > So Abortion = killing the baby = murder =
> wrong.
>
> Not so, it has everything to do with limited
> government. But, I'll break it down. Someone who
> is pro-limited gorvernment is, by denifinition,
> against government interference in their lives,
> self, and economy; correct? Those who are pro-life
> wish to impose a legislative ban on abortion,
> correct? So therefore, one who considers
> themselves against the government controlling
> aspects of their lives and bodies, cannot
> simultaneously want the government to dictate what
> other people decide do with their unborn children.
> Right or wrong, choice or murder; it should not be
> within the government's authority to decide for
> them.

So in your warped view of limited government, there would be no laws?

Murder, domestic violence, child abuse, etc would all be legal because it should not be within the government's authority to dictate what people do with their kids, spouse, etc?

You're thinking of anarchy, not limited government conservatism. The goal should be to limit government intervention in our daily lives, not eliminate it entirely. The rule of law and the rights of the individual must still be protected.

jacksonville Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe if all "expectant" moms and dads who can't
> keep it in their pants-would learn to do so, we
> wouldn't need abortions, but as it is this society
> cannot afford unwanted humans walking the earth,
> they are expensive, and degrade our lives. I have
> had an abortion and it is the most mature thing I
> have ever done, I now have three children-all in
> ivy league colleges because I planned them, could
> afford them and wanted them and understand that
> being a parent is the most time intensive and
> important thing you can do and should not be
> approach lightly or stupidly. Abort republicans
> NOW.


So basically you admit to committing murder. For your own convenience you
killed your own child because YOU did not want to take responsibility for your
own actions. Did you ask the father or his parents if they would take care of it?
My guess is you just killed it and your making an excuse. It must suck to be a murderer.

Wrong idealogy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So in your warped view of limited government,
> there would be no laws?
>
> Murder, domestic violence, child abuse, etc would
> all be legal because it should not be within the
> government's authority to dictate what people do
> with their kids, spouse, etc?
>
> You're thinking of anarchy, not limited government
> conservatism. The goal should be to limit
> government intervention in our daily lives, not
> eliminate it entirely. The rule of law and the
> rights of the individual must still be protected.

Ah the ole' slippery slope arguement.

There's big difference, whether you want to admit it or not, between a child that has come out of the womb that lives, breathes and eats on it's own, has a name, social security number, i.e. officially a person; and an unborn fetus that's physically attached to the mother and depends on her solely for it's survival. A man beating his children is wrong because they are born, living, fully sentient beings. A man beating his wife is wrong because, again, one person is deprieving the rights of another living, fully sentient, aware being. Same with murder. Unborn fetuses on the other hand, aren't sentient. They have no awareness whatesoever, therefore not sentient because they do not have functioning brains. However, personally I"m against late term abortions because I feel that babies that can survive on their own outside the womb are legitimately a person. But that's NOT for me to decide. Nor is it for you, nor the government.

Regardless of your moral stance on abortion, it's never going away. Period. Our great grandchildren will be arguing the exact same issue.

If it's not going away, it may as well be as safe as possible. I don't know why anyone WOULDN'T want an ultrasound before an abortion; it's the best way to make sure that there are no complications with the pregnancy, that the woman is actually pregnant, etc. In my mind, having an abortion done without an ultrasound is the same as having knee surgery without an x-ray.

Don't bother throwing up the "IT'S AN ADDITIONAL COST" argument. Most abortion clinics won't do one without the ultrasound, and low-income patients pay less anyway.

I'd be fine with the additional medical tests before getting my boner pills if the tests reduced the risk of complications, too.

Stop whining.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Breakdown Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Simple argument Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Simple Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Conservatards: if you are pro-life, you
> cannot
> > > consider yourself pro-limited government.
> >
> > You wanna expand on that a bit?
> >
> > The abortion debate has absolutely nothing to
> do
> > with limited government. And its not about
> > religion either. Its simple morality.
> >
> > If you're pro-life then the unborn baby is a
> > person and has the same rights and everyone
> else.
> >
> > So Abortion = killing the baby = murder =
> wrong.
>
> Not so, it has everything to do with limited
> government. But, I'll break it down. Someone who
> is pro-limited gorvernment is, by denifinition,
> against government interference in their lives,
> self, and economy; correct? Those who are pro-life
> wish to impose a legislative ban on abortion,
> correct? So therefore, one who considers
> themselves against the government controlling
> aspects of their lives and bodies, cannot
> simultaneously want the government to dictate what
> other people decide do with their unborn children.
> Right or wrong, choice or murder; it should not be
> within the government's authority to decide for
> them.

By your logic, Republicans couldn't make murder illegal.

"Limited government" <> "No government"

TKardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Breakdown Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Simple argument Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Simple Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Conservatards: if you are pro-life, you
> > cannot
> > > > consider yourself pro-limited government.
> > >
> > > You wanna expand on that a bit?
> > >
> > > The abortion debate has absolutely nothing to
> > do
> > > with limited government. And its not about
> > > religion either. Its simple morality.
> > >
> > > If you're pro-life then the unborn baby is a
> > > person and has the same rights and everyone
> > else.
> > >
> > > So Abortion = killing the baby = murder =
> > wrong.
> >
> > Not so, it has everything to do with limited
> > government. But, I'll break it down. Someone
> who
> > is pro-limited gorvernment is, by denifinition,
> > against government interference in their lives,
> > self, and economy; correct? Those who are
> pro-life
> > wish to impose a legislative ban on abortion,
> > correct? So therefore, one who considers
> > themselves against the government controlling
> > aspects of their lives and bodies, cannot
> > simultaneously want the government to dictate
> what
> > other people decide do with their unborn
> children.
> > Right or wrong, choice or murder; it should not
> be
> > within the government's authority to decide for
> > them.
>
> By your logic, Republicans couldn't make murder
> illegal.
>
> "Limited government" <> "No government"

It's interesting how Republicans are all about saving the unborn but will fuck over the living so quickly by classifying them as poor.

Jesus would be so proud.

TKardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By your logic, Republicans couldn't make murder
> illegal.
>
> "Limited government" <> "No government"

A) Murder is already illegal, and I never said anything about Republicans.

B) Murder of sentient, aware beings (who have not deprieved, life, limb, or liberty from other sentient, aware beings) is absolutely imcomparable to murder of unborn fetus'.

C) Again, a limited government is not one that can dictate what a women chooses to do with her unborn child. That would, again, be government interference in what should be a person's decision that they make themselves. None of the government's business.

Still Simple Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> B) Murder of sentient, aware beings (who have not
> deprieved, life, limb, or liberty from other
> sentient, aware beings) is absolutely imcomparable
> to murder of unborn fetus'.

Subjective.

You're trying to pass off your opinion as fact.

The root of the argument Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Still Simple Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > B) Murder of sentient, aware beings (who have
> not
> > deprieved, life, limb, or liberty from other
> > sentient, aware beings) is absolutely
> imcomparable
> > to murder of unborn fetus'.
>
> Subjective.
>
> You're trying to pass off your opinion as fact.

Good God, do you pro-lifers really value unborn fetuses so much that you compare abortions to the murder of real people? What the hell is wrong with you? I think the problem is you care so much about unborn fetuses, that you forget about those who are actually living, breathing, talking people. THAT, my friend, is the root of the argument.

And again, my main point is that this is absolutely no concern of the government. The morality of abortions along with the burden of choice should rest solely on the carrier of the child, and NOT be decided with my taxes.

Still Simple Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TKardinal Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > By your logic, Republicans couldn't make murder
> > illegal.
> >
> > "Limited government" <> "No government"
>
> A) Murder is already illegal, and I never said
> anything about Republicans.
>
> B) Murder of sentient, aware beings (who have not
> deprieved, life, limb, or liberty from other
> sentient, aware beings) is absolutely imcomparable
> to murder of unborn fetus'.
>
> C) Again, a limited government is not one that can
> dictate what a women chooses to do with her unborn
> child. That would, again, be government
> interference in what should be a person's decision
> that they make themselves. None of the
> government's business.

B) Sure it's comparable. I just made the comparison, and it happens to be true.

C) The very fact that you say "should be a person's decision" means you're using the conclusion to support the argument. That's circular reasoning.

Limited government is consistent with the principle that people's rights should be recognized and protected by government action. Unborn children have a right to life, therefore it is consistent with limited government for that government to defend that right to life.

You may not agree with the principle that unborn children have a right to life. That's your (political) right. But being pro-life and in favor of limited government is a logically consistent position.

TKardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
B) Sure it's comparable. I just made the comparison, and it happens to be true.

Now you're being subjective. Isn't fun when we try to brush off other's opinions by positioning ours as facts?

TKardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You may not agree with the principle that unborn
> children have a right to life. That's your
> (political) right. But being pro-life and in
> favor of limited government is a logically
> consistent position.

However, hypocritical.

I maintain that the government has no authority to decide how and what pregnant women do with the dependant not-capable-of-living-outside-the-womb organism inside their bodies, neither do you. Yes, the government has an obligation to protect life, limb and property. But as was said, the core of the issue is whether or not life starts at conception. Again, this should not be something for the government to decide.

This Is Why You Don't Support Welfare Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Good God, do you pro-lifers really value unborn
> fetuses so much that you compare abortions to the
> murder of real people?

Are you seriously just figuring this out now?

What the hell do you think people have been arguing about for the past 40 years?

Pro-Life = life begins at conception
Pro-Choice = life begins at birth

Duh.

And stem cells grown a laboratory should not be allow to save life?

TheLordKing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And stem cells grown a laboratory should not be
> allow to save life?

I think that issue is dead.

Didn't they find a way to extract stem cells from non-embryonic cells?

If republicans are so "pro-life" why are they against in vitro?

I am a writer and editor of the articles mostly based on mens and sexual health,
i really like the subject and infor provided, any view on the use of medications like generic viagra.

Breakdown Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Simple argument Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Simple Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Conservatards: if you are pro-life, you
> cannot
> > > consider yourself pro-limited government.
> >
> > You wanna expand on that a bit?
> >
> > The abortion debate has absolutely nothing to
> do
> > with limited government. And its not about
> > religion either. Its simple morality.
> >
> > If you're pro-life then the unborn baby is a
> > person and has the same rights and everyone
> else.
> >
> > So Abortion = killing the baby = murder =
> wrong.
>
> Not so, it has everything to do with limited
> government. But, I'll break it down. Someone who
> is pro-limited gorvernment is, by denifinition,
> against government interference in their lives,
> self, and economy; correct? Those who are pro-life
> wish to impose a legislative ban on abortion,
> correct? So therefore, one who considers
> themselves against the government controlling
> aspects of their lives and bodies, cannot
> simultaneously want the government to dictate what
> other people decide do with their unborn children.
> Right or wrong, choice or murder; it should not be
> within the government's authority to decide for
> them.


By this logic parents should be allowed to kill their kids at any point since they made them and murder should be legal since limited government cant tell people what to do with their fingers pulling a trigger. Stupid argument

This Is Why You Don't Support Welfare Wrote:


> Good God, do you pro-lifers really value unborn
> fetuses so much that you compare abortions to the
> murder of real people? What the hell is wrong with
> you? I think the problem is you care so much about
> unborn fetuses, that you forget about those who
> are actually living, breathing, talking people.
> THAT, my friend, is the root of the argument.
>
> And again, my main point is that this is
> absolutely no concern of the government. The
> morality of abortions along with the burden of
> choice should rest solely on the carrier of the
> child, and NOT be decided with my taxes.

Weiseal you have to be a complete idiot to think a fetus isnt a real person. Where the hell do you think you came from, a stork?

Then what you did this morning in the shower was an abortion, life NEVER begins with Republicans...

but why must it involve penetration? when an abdominal ultrasound would provide the same image capability of manipulating her emotions. the person/woman not having a choice to refuse this penetration, that is the issue here buddy, you're missing the point by a couple football fields.

jacksonville Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe if all "expectant" moms and dads who can't
> keep it in their pants-would learn to do so, we
> wouldn't need abortions, but as it is this society
> cannot afford unwanted humans walking the earth,
> they are expensive, and degrade our lives. I have
> had an abortion and it is the most mature thing I
> have ever done, I now have three children-all in
> ivy league colleges because I planned them, could
> afford them and wanted them and understand that
> being a parent is the most time intensive and
> important thing you can do and should not be
> approach lightly or stupidly. Abort republicans
> NOW.
Bye bye Jacksonville, since you have now passed the productive stage of your life, it is time for you to go. We "can't afford" elderly "humans walking the earth. They are expensive and degrade our lives." So for the sake of the rest of us, why don't you go abort yourself.

liberalinsanity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal logic: YOu can kill your child at will if
> its inconvenient, ending someone else's life, but
> you can't smoke a cigarette in a bar you are the
> OWNER of.


How is banning smoking a Liberal cause? You conservafucks are the ones that are afraid of substances. The right is always trying to turn the country into a nanny state.

Ding an sich +1