Indiana GOP Rep Thinks Women Will Fake Rape Or Incest To Get An Abortion

Bfgrn said:
You're either full of shit or as dumb shit. If you read Obama's speech from the Illinois senate floor, you KNOW it is a viability issue.
Click to expand...

“Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -– a child, a nine-month-old –- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it –- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.”
Click to expand...

obviously his point wasn't that the act didn't apply to viable births, his point was that this act would interfere with abortions and it would be wrong to call that which someone wants to abort, a child....regardless of whether it has a" beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles"......(note, not regardless of "viablity" but regardless of evidence of life)....
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
obviously his point wasn't that the act didn't apply to viable births, his point was that this act would interfere with abortions and it would be wrong to call that which someone wants to abort, a child....regardless of whether it has a" beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles"......(note, not regardless of "viablity" but regardless of evidence of life)....
Click to expand...

It is 100% about viability. The legislation would have redefined viability despite the fact 100% of the pre-viable fetuses would die even with extreme medical intervention. The right wing zealots who wrote the bill were not concerned about humane treatment of fetuses that had ZERO chance of survival. Their only concern was taking away women's rights and finding a way to destroy a law that is fair.

You right wingers always exclude the things you don't want to hear. Here is the rest of what Obama said:

This is a realistic assessment of the likely outcome of passing legislation that uses the Fourteenth Amendment as a basis for protecting pre-viable fetuses. His issue is with the language of the bill, not with providing humane treatment to delivered, pre-viable fetuses.]

Then this would be an antiabortion statute.

For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a pre-viable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a pre-viable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality.

Now, as I said before, this probably won't make any difference.

I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion; we passed a bill out of here.
I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit.

It was.

I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I -- I won't, as I said, belabor the point.
I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and -- and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a -- a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital.

We decided not to do that.

We're going much further than that in this bill.

As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue.

And as a consequence, I'll be voting Present.
 
Last edited:
the bill had the same language as the federal bill which was drafted to specifically comply with the court ruling....

His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law.
Click to expand...

http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the bill had the same language as the federal bill which was drafted to specifically comply with the court ruling....



http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/
Click to expand...

Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law.

In 2005, the campaign noted, a "Born Alive" bill passed the Illinois Legislature after another clause had been added that explicitly stated that the legislation would have no effect on existing state abortion laws.

Here is the point...IF the concern was honestly for the humane treatment of a non-viable fetus by the right wing anti-women's rights zealots, it could have been done in short order in 2002. But that was NOT what their agenda. YOU even admitted it was to undermine Roe v. Wade. You folks are lying scum bags.
 
Bfgrn said:
Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law.

In 2005, the campaign noted, a "Born Alive" bill passed the Illinois Legislature after another clause had been added that explicitly stated that the legislation would have no effect on existing state abortion laws.

Here is the point...IF the concern was honestly for the humane treatment of a non-viable fetus by the right wing anti-women's rights zealots, it could have been done in short order in 2002. But that was NOT what their agenda. YOU even admitted it was to undermine Roe v. Wade. You folks are lying scum bags.
Click to expand...

and Obama's concern was preventing any inroads against abortion, even if it meant killing off children who HAD been born alive.......the scumbag in this debate is in the Oval Office....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and Obama's concern was preventing any inroads against abortion, even if it meant killing off children who HAD been born alive.......the scumbag in this debate is in the Oval Office....
Click to expand...

Because a woman has the right to decide what to do with her uterus, not you right wing fascists. And the entities you continue to call 'children' are non-viable fetuses that have ZERO chance of survival...NONE.
 
apple0154 said:
Let's get something straight. There is no "fact" life begins at conception. We have simply attached whatever terms we like to certain events.

Between the time of conception and the dividing of the cell it does not qualify as an organism and all life is supposed to qualify as an organism so life does not begin at conception. There is approximately a 24 hour period between the sperm entering the egg (cell) and the cell dividing.

Organisms have to have the ability to cell divide and we know 50% (+/_) fertilized cells do not divide. They spontaneously abort.

But beyond all that the sperm and the egg are alive even before they join so to say life begins when they join is arbitrary, to say the least.
Click to expand...


Wrong. It is a fact that life begins at conception. You can choose to hate the reality of what words mean, but that's your own brainwashed choice.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Wrong. It is a fact that life begins at conception. You can choose to hate the reality of what words mean, but that's your own brainwashed choice.
Click to expand...

Viable life does not begin at conception. The lower limit of viability is approximately five months gestational age, and usually later.

800px-Prenatal_development_table.svg.png
 
Bfgrn said:
Viable life does not begin at conception. The lower limit of viability is approximately five months gestational age, and usually later.

800px-Prenatal_development_table.svg.png
Click to expand...

So you support killing a baby because it can't live outside the mother's womb until it is 5 months gestational age... Why?
 
Ice Dancer said:
So you support killing a baby because it can't live outside the mother's womb until it is 5 months gestational age... Why?
Click to expand...
Why do you believe YOU have right to control a woman's uterus? Worry about your own. If you are against abortion, don't participate.
 
Bfgrn said:
Why do you believe YOU have right to control a woman's uterus? Worry about your own. If you are against abortion, don't participate.
Click to expand...


Why do you believe that you have the right to kill 1 million innocent babies a year? If you don't like babies get spayed/neutered...see how specious that is?

I asked a question and as you have done with everyone in this thread-when you don't like the question you don't answer- I'll ask again: So you support killing a baby because it can't live outside the mother's womb until it is 5 months gestational age... Why?
 
Ice Dancer said:
Why do you believe that you have the right to kill 1 million innocent babies a year? If you don't like babies get spayed/neutered...see how specious that is?

I asked a question and as you have done with everyone in this thread-when you don't like the question you don't answer- I'll ask again: So you support killing a baby because it can't live outside the mother's womb until it is 5 months gestational age... Why?
Click to expand...

If it can't live outside the mother's womb, it is not a baby. It is a non-viable fetus. If you have a problem with that, then spend the time & effort to change the law.

But then you will really need to step up to the plate because a full term pregnancy is not a passive event for a women. SO...if you want to impose what YOU believe on other women, you need to be willing to PAY FOR their doctor's care, PAY FOR their special nutritional needs, PAY FOR their lost wages, and if they lose their job, PAY FOR compensation until they find comparable work. Then, if the women has a severe medical complication that disables her, you will have to PAY FOR her lifelong care. When you right wing fascists want to dictate what other people must do, you OWN it. YOU are responsible for all the consequences.

Are you willing Ice Dancer?
 
Bfgrn said:
If it can't live outside the mother's womb, it is not a baby. It is a non-viable fetus. If you have a problem with that, then spend the time & effort to change the law.

But then you will really need to step up to the plate because a full term pregnancy is not a passive event for a women. SO...if you want to impose what YOU believe on other women, you need to be willing to PAY FOR their doctor's care, PAY FOR their special nutritional needs, PAY FOR their lost wages, and if they lose their job, PAY FOR compensation until they find comparable work. Then, if the women has a severe medical complication that disables her, you will have to PAY FOR her lifelong care. When you right wing fascists want to dictate what other people must do, you OWN it. YOU are responsible for all the consequences.

Are you willing Ice Dancer?
Click to expand...

A born baby cannot live outside the womb without the care of an adult. The point of course being that viability as a rationale for protecting life is subjective and is based on personal value not on any kind of ethical principle. Welfare and social security disability already "pays" for all of those things and then some. No one has to keep a baby. It is you who wish to impose the most terrible inflictions on another human being- and that infliction is death.

I have and do fight for pro-life causes. I have been doing so for about 20 years now. Like abolitionists who fought for the rights of another class of people without a voice because they were deemed less than equal-I and numerous others continue to fight for the voice of the unborn who are killed by the millions by people like yourself.
 
Bfgrn said:
If it can't live outside the mother's womb, it is not a baby. It is a non-viable fetus. If you have a problem with that, then spend the time & effort to change the law.

But then you will really need to step up to the plate because a full term pregnancy is not a passive event for a women. SO...if you want to impose what YOU believe on other women, you need to be willing to PAY FOR their doctor's care, PAY FOR their special nutritional needs, PAY FOR their lost wages, and if they lose their job, PAY FOR compensation until they find comparable work. Then, if the women has a severe medical complication that disables her, you will have to PAY FOR her lifelong care. When you right wing fascists want to dictate what other people must do, you OWN it. YOU are responsible for all the consequences.

Are you willing Ice Dancer?
Click to expand...

The Following User Says What a Fucking Idiot to Bfgrn for this Ridiculous Post:

PostmodernProphet
 
Ice Dancer said:
A born baby cannot live outside the womb without the care of an adult. The point of course being that viability as a rationale for protecting life is subjective and is based on personal value not on any kind of ethical principle. Welfare and social security disability already "pays" for all of those things and then some. No one has to keep a baby. It is you who wish to impose the most terrible inflictions on another human being- and that infliction is death.

I have and do fight for pro-life causes. I have been doing so for about 20 years now. Like abolitionists who fought for the rights of another class of people without a voice because they were deemed less than equal-I and numerous others continue to fight for the voice of the unborn who are killed by the millions by people like yourself.
Click to expand...

"No one has to keep a baby."

If a fetus is a baby then denying an abortion is forcing someone to keep a "baby" and as you you said, "No one has to keep a baby".
 
Ice Dancer said:
They are called pre birth adoptions, but I was referring to post birth adoptions
Click to expand...

Question: Shouldn't we exhause all alternatives such as aggressive sex education, condom dispersal, public service announcements, etc. before outlawing abortion?

Do you remember the drinking and driving campaign of the 80's? I recall one AD that used to play on KING-TV out of Seattle. The AD was set up like one from the Shopping Channel.

"If you get stopped for impaired driving you get a free night in jail and you don't have to worry about finding a parking place as we'll take car of your car."

Then the AD would go one about appearing in court and posting bail and then "But wait! There's more! You'll save on gas because your licence will be suspended and...."

Anyway, the point is there are ways to bring safe sex and abortion to public awareness in different ways. Shouldn't every possible way be tried before resorting to taking away women's rights?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top