The whole logic behind that blog is spurious and not causal. It is a frivolous link. This is like saying that every time you eat at out, you are responsible for the death of a homeless person. McDonald’s realized some 4.6 billion dollars in profits last year – do you know how many emergency shelters, soup kitchens, and subsidized housing that would pay for? The next time you are satisfying your Big Mac attack, know that you have just murdered a poor person suffering from starvation or exposure to the elements. Absurd? Not nearly as absurd as the argument in this blog.

‘Third World’ human suffering is as much a result of corruption and neglect by governments as it is anything else. Billions of dollars of aid go to people in need – and far too much of that money is consumed through corruption and greed. Change their governments and you would see a change in the plight of the poor throughout the world.

Women weren’t allowed to go and get abortions before Roe v Wade, and America flourished just fine. Perhaps people should be responsible for themselves for a change and be selective about whom they have sex with? If abortion isn’t killing a baby- what is it? Women are prosecuted every day for child neglect, child abuse, abandonment, shaken baby syndrome, and so forth. Why is killing their baby ‘not’ a crime in your mind?

rcrawford: ‘procreation’ isn’t the same thing as casual sex without responsibility. There’s no conundrum. Her choice was to have sex. She can also choose to keep the baby she made or give it up for adoption, but killing it hardly seems fair to the innocent baby. Do you go around to preschools stabbing children in the skull or sawing off arms and legs for profit? What difference is it if the preborn has it done?

There are two proper purposes of sexual intercourse. One to bring the woman and man closer together – a bond of love and giving of each other. Two, that’s how babies are made. Either of these two factors missing and it’s out of order and wrong. Plus, having sex is fun. Where would the babies be if it wasn’t fun? The trouble is responsibility, and if I can say to myself that the life now conceived from having sex is not life at all, then responsibility goes out the window. If you don’t want to conceive a child, then don’t have sex. It’s not rocket-science.

This bill raises more questions than it answers. If a mother miscarries, would she be tried for manslaughter? How do we deal with artificial insemination, a process which often fertilizes more eggs then it uses? What recourse would a woman have who falls ill while pregnant and cannot risk carrying the child to full term?

I am against this bill because it doesn’t address the issue at hand and makes broad, clumsy scientific claims that restricts the freedoms of average citizens. It needlessly intertwines issues of cloning and abortion with that of murder and abortion.

It is ludicrous- and legally unsound— to define life as beginning at conception.

Recognizing a collection of undifferentiated cells as a human being would mean that it is entitled to protections offered by the US Constitution (“life, liberty” etc.). Which would make any action against that mass of cells (deliberate or otherwise) a form of assault, or even murder.

So, if a woman decided to get an abortion- even prior to those cells dividing and differentiating, that woman could be prosecuted for murder.

Even if the woman did not abort, but engaged in any behavior that would not provide the optimum gestational environment for those cells, she could be charged with assault, and child endangerment and/or abuse. So if a pregnant didnt eat a nutritious diet, if she worked too hard or for too many hours, if she drove too fast…she could be prosecuted as a child endangerer. And she might even lose custody of that child, having been deemed an unfit mother- and what if custody was revoked while she was still carrying the fetus?

Women, stand UP for your rights to manage your own reproductive lives! You can still be pro-life and be pro- women’s rights. Keep the government off our bodies and out of our bedrooms.

www.feministsforlife.com

Life begins when a human can survive outside of the womb.

Anyone notice this bill would also define humans as to having rights when they are cloned? What the heck? So, an unborn baby has the same rights as an unborn clone? H’mmm… I wonder how the religious right will view this?

Wow, I’m amazed at the comments here. It is obvious that the minority are the ones commenting. I agree with the bill. Why anyone would devalue human life is beyond me. The comment stating that life begins when I human can survive outside the womb is logically ridiculous.

re: the statement “Life begins when a human can survive outside of the womb.”
And when is that exactly? After the baby is born or when it is deemed capable of survival? Who will get to make that determination? Babies have survived natural birth after as little as 20 weeks. In fact if a baby is created outside the womb then it is able to survive from the moment of conception (creation). I guess that would pretty much settle the argument, don’t you agree?

Given that around 20% of pregnancies end is miscarriage, why would this measure be anything but unreasonable, impractical and dangerous? It wouldn’t. The medical terminology for miscarriage is “spontaneous abortion.” Imagine the legal minefield ahead if rights are granted at the moment of conception. The only motivation for this bill is to end abortion, along with certain forms of birth control. The route that this measure takes, regardless of one’s position on either abortion or birth control, is woefully misguided.

Three things come to mind for me.

First, if life begins at conception, wouldn’t that make the pill illegal as well? And fertility clinics would probably become illegal as well, wouldn’t they? Disposing of those fertilized eggs (conceived, yes?) would also be muder.

Second, before Roe v Wade, abortions were conducted in back alleys and many desperate women died at their hands. To say that America flourished is ignoring this very brutal part of our history. The bill would make abortions accessible only to the rich, who could fly to a country where they are legal.

Third, what should be the penalty for women who do have abortions? The death penalty?

Thank you, eenorton. I thoroughly agree with the fact that making the pill illegal will be the next step. In fact, aren’t my eggs simply pre-unborn babies? If so, is the next step to state that the right to life starts with the my eggs – ie, will my life be regulated to ensure that I provide an optimum environment that will create life for each pre-unborn baby? This is scary.

And yes, there are very sad statistics about back alley abortions before Roe vs Wade. Those rich enough will always find a way to get their abortions as needed. However, this will make the poor even poorer.

Let us concentrate on bills that provide for the poor, help the starving, and provide a foundation where a woman feels she can bring children into the world and support them. The rate of abortion will then go way down.

Additionally, education should be provided for women on the failure rate of birth control. Even the pill is only 99% effective. That means that for every 99 times a women has sexual intercourse while on the pill, the 100th time, she is likely to become pregnant. Condoms have an even greater failure rate of about 40%.

No means of human intervention/interference is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. Abstinence/Chastity education is the only means to prevent both pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted disease.

Sadly the percentage of women who have an abortion after consensual sex is far greater than the percentage of women who have an abortion following rape or incest. I don’t have statistics at hand to quote. The choice for those women was made when they consented to engage in the act of procreation. The unborn child was a natural consequence of that act. Our government’s responsibility is to protect the rights of its citizens who are unable to speak for themselves. In my opinion, that includes unborn children.

On the most basic level, the genetic level, the fetus is a unique human being, albeit an underdeveloped one, at the point where the genetic material from the father combines with the genetic material from the mother to create a unique genetic structure. The viability of the life form is irrelevant. Were viability really the issue, Dr. Kevorkian would have been justified in assisting in the premature death of terminally ill patients. Just because an unborn child has not been assigned a social security number should not prevent him/her from receiving due protection under the constitution.

The arguments about miscarriage and “neglect” on the mothers’ part are ludicrous. In order for a person to be committed of a crime, criminal intent must be proven. I’ve had many friends who have had multiple miscarriages not due in any part to their choices or intents. They were trying desperately to carry a child to term. A miscarriage under these circumstances would never be able to be tried as murder or neglect. However, if a woman knows she is pregnant, and intentionally takes measures to prematurely end the life of her unborn child either by action or inaction, she could potentially be tried for murder. In any case, while it is the responsibility of congress to write laws that are easily interpreted, it is ultimately the job of the Justice system to interpret and enforce the laws.

A woman has the right to choose what happens to her body. But when she chooses to engage in an act that has a chance of creating a new human life, the rights of the unborn also need to be weighed against her right to live a life conveniently unencumbered by a child.

Let’s stop wasting time and tax dollars arguing over when life starts and whether a woman has the right to prematurely end the life of her unborn child. Instead, lets promote education that tells women and girls the truth about the consequences of engaging in sexual intercourse. Even on the pill, statistically speaking, a woman will get pregnant 1 time out of every 100 times she has intercourse. It’s like playing Russian Roulette. You never know if this time will be the time you get pregnant. So you should abstain unless you are ready to fulfill the responsibilities that result from failed birth control.

Women aren’t the only ones responsible either. Men should be held responsible for the life that is created as well. Men should also be educated on the responsibilities of being sexually active. The issue here isn’t about life or freedom or rights. It’s about who is going to step up and take responsibility for their own actions.

It is the responsibility of the government to PROTECT the people it governs, especially those unable to protect themselves, without a voice, victimized. Those in most need of governmental protection right now are the unborn. Please support this bill.

I do not agree with the right wing attempt to side-step the Roe v Wade ruling and subsequent upholdings over the years. Government more often than not ends up dealing with adult unwanted children via the prison system, is that better? Is that protecting them from a life of neglect and being generally unwanted and not well watched after or cared for? Try the book “Freakonomics” which has a section which addresses the issue of crime increases in this country and others in which a direct link over time can be shown. Wards of the state in one form or another are a burden to the system. Morality can be learned and taught but historically has never done well at being forced on any population in any civilization.

Why not. The Dem’s side step the GOP all the time. Seems only fair to me, if you’re so pro abprtion, maybe we should abort you.

Unless the US is a theocracy which is run according to conservative evangelical protestant Christianity, this bill would probably violate separation of church and state. Different religions have different opinions about when life begins. Imposing this law over the heads of everyone would be akin to imposing one set of religious views on all people, forcing them to follow a certain religion.