My body, my choice, vote NO!!!!!!!!!!!!

a different life, and the taking away of a life sounds like a definition for a word that slips my mind…..o, yes. murder.

a heartbeat is formed before most women know they are pregnant.

Be responsible with your body.

The selfish behavior and trends in society today continue to think of humans as disposible. It is the importance of life that we should protect not only upon conception but because the value continues with human life itself. If we do not protect our unborn, why should we then protect any life? It is for this reason that the most innocent should be protected. The most innocent being a life at conception. It is easy for a person to say “My Body,my Choice” but how would that same person relate to a aged person who no longer contributes to society but requires full time care. Would that person then state “no contribution, my choice.” For all of these reasons, again, life itself should be valued at any points of its life most importantly upon it’s conception.

Seriously? That has got to be one of the dumbest analogies I have ever heard.
And this bill will never pass.

you are right about “your body your choice” But that is also a slogan,that begets another slogan.
The real question is what is abortion, a religious,a medical, or political issue. YES, life begins at conception. YES, that life becomes a citizen, and a person at birth. And a political being at an age determined by law. So if a woman has concived she gets two votes.( and of this whole discorse the last statement will get the most vilication.

So I guess abortion is a peacful way to treat another human being? A peacful way to treat the most defenseless? Perhaps you should find peaceful way to perform a post partum abortion on yourself? I cold find you Dr. Kavorkian’s number if you would like.

You have the right to choose to STOP having sex if you don’t want to be pregnant!

Since pinky made the same comment on both this bill and on HR 881, I will as well.

The vast majority of pregnant women had a choice, and they chose to take the risk that they would become pregnant. Once a baby has entered the picture, the woman no longer has a choice. She has made her choice already.

“Life at Conception Act – Declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being beginning at the moment of fertilization, ***cloning***, and other moment at which an individual comes into being.”

Why mention cloning if the cloning and breeding of Human beings is illegal, unethical, and dangeous as to the unforeseen consequences of later reproduction!?

What is the intention or motivation for mentioning cloning! Very strange.

OK Pinky, here is you an analogy then since you didn’t like that one. You chose to go in to get an abortion and they shoot you in the forehead and put your lifeless body into a dumpster. That is the same thing as an abortion for that unborn child, except for 1 main difference, the baby doesn’t get a choice!

Jonathan, I found that very interesting as well, makes it sound like they are going to try to introduce something else if the bill passes.

No matter where you stand on abortion, you should oppose this bill because of the manner in which it defines life. Please think it through before you throw in your support. It is defining life as beginning at fertilization, a definition that is INCREDIBLY problematic and very dangerous for the rights of all Americans, but specifically women.

Even those in the medical profession don’t define life as beginning at fertilization, but rather at implantation. There are a host of issues revolving around defining life as starting at fertilization. First, an enormous number of pregnancies are terminated (spontaneous abortion or miscarriage) by the body, with a rate estimated by professionals as high if not higher than 50% (see http://www.medicinenet.com/miscarriage/article.htm as just ONE resource on this information). By stating that life begins at fertilization (something doctors even have a hard time IDENTIFYING) opens women’s bodies up for all sorts of legislation and legal acts.

Miscarriage or spontaneous abortion can suddenly become manslaughter, criminal negligence or murder. All those women who have difficulties conceiving and want to try over and over again risk various sorts of criminal prosecution because fertilization occurs (thus life if this bill were to pass) and thus are “killing” someone.

In order to ensure that people were not killing “someone”, menstrual periods would need to be monitored as a heavy period could be caused by a miscarriage. In fact, in order to maintain the sanctity of life in this definition of life, we would need to closely monitor ALL aspects of a sexually active woman’s reproductive cycle, watching hormone levels and such to determine when/if she were pregnant and then to monitor her activities in order to ensure that the “life” is protected.

Any miscarriage leaves a woman (and men in cases of sexual activity between partners during fertilization) liable to face murder charges because she exercised or worked or ate or drank or did something wrong that could have (because in most miscarriages you cannot define the reason) caused a “child” to die, even if the parties involved had no knowledge of a fertilized egg.

In addition, the pill and other forms of periodic birth control become illegal because one of the ways in which it is suspected to function is to prevent implantation if fertilization happens to occur.

Putting that aside, what about all the fertility methods that are occurring? The vast majority require fertilized eggs outside of the body and then implanted. If someone drops one of those eggs, have they committed manslaughter? When the pregnancy doesn’t take (implantation doesn’t occur), can you sue your doctor and other medical personnel for killing your “child”? Lets not even talk about an egg that has been frozen for years.

Other issues include how population and death rates are calculated. How do we investigate “human” death? Do fertilized eggs get social security, etc? What constitutional rights are we going to protect for a fertilized egg? What benefits do we say they are granted? And this is only the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

The scientific fact is that spontaneous abortion occurs far more often than voluntary abortion and yet we do not feel the need, in this country, to put billions of research dollars and public efforts into solving this problem. We hold that spontaneous abortion is no one’s fault, but by defining life at fertilization, we suddenly are forced to hold people responsible for a variety of issues.

In many cases, fertilized and even implanted fertilized eggs are not viable due to genetic abnormalities, hormonal imbalances, problems during DNA replication, etc etc. This is a fact of life and this bill is problematic because it could hold people criminally culpable for naturally occurring processes that we cannot, in many cases, stop or fix.

Please do your research and think very carefully about the full consequences of this bill. It is not so simple as a “pro-life” or “pro-choice” or even a religious issue. We’re talking about a bill that has the potential to dramatically change the fundamental rights of the United States, a bill that can eventually (and you could argue, should eventually, given the status of personhood) dramatically reduce the rights of roughly 50% of the population. This is also a bill that would problematize natural occurrences within the body.

Please, consider carefully where you put your support and do not support this bill.

What an over the top comment. This bill says absolutely nothing about miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. Obviously a ploy to say that you think abortion is OK at any time, for any purpose. It is people like you and your ilk that demeans the right of every human and think it is your right to play God. A human being at any stage of development is still a human being and should be defined as such and protected under law as every other citizen of this nation, perhaps even more, since they are so helpless and unable to defend themselves. It is morally and legally wrong to do otherwise.

Spontaneous abortion does not need to be mentioned specifically in the bill in order for the bill to have an impact upon it.
It is interesting that you have jumped to conclusions to decide my stance on abortion in general from my statement about this bill.
My point is this: By stating that life begins at fertilization, the government is suddenly required to protect that life from fertilization to natural death. This means that women and men can suddenly be held responsible for spontaneous abortions/miscarriages, a variety of birth defects, amongst many other issues. There are a variety of other issues.

This is a poorly written, poorly conceived bill that at minimum needs further in depth thought as to its impact upon our country prior to even being proposed.

MatadorBID I completely agree!! Besides, by the 21st day after a baby is conceived they have a beating heart and by as early as the 40th day there are undeniable electrical brain waves. If that is not a human being than what is? Also another slogan: If the babay had a choice they’d choose life. That little cluster of cells if given a chance could grow up to be a beautiful baby boy or girl.

If life began at conception, your book of myths would have celebrated it. The wise men came after the birth, not after the conception. Life begins at birth. Check all of your legal documents, and all of the records going back in recorded history. No one ever keeps track of the date of conception except the whackjobs who want to make their religious doctrine superior to rational thought.

All of your historical precedents make alot of sense until you realize that pregnancy tests and abortion are relatively new medical procedures. It’s asinine to suggest that the point is not logical because thousands of years of cultural precedent wasn’t changed due to something produced within the past 100 years. And yes, people who celebrate the date of conception are trying way too hard to showcase their pro-life stance.

The point is that the vast majority of pregnant women made a choice on the night of conception. The unborn child never has that luxury.

The unborn child does not have the rights afforded to human beings – since it is not born, it is not a person.

Good luck with continuing to fight a lost cause. No one is pro-abortion or pro-death. The Reich defines the terms that way. Pro-choice and ant-choice are the correct terms.

The point is that a fetus can not tell us whether they wish to be carried to term. The rights of the born trump the rights of the unborn.

PS – there is evidence of abortions being practiced in Sumer.

You criticize pro-life for using the terms “pro-abortion or pro-death” then turn around and make the same error? Not only that but you keep using these brainwash slogans like “religulous” and “The Reich.” There’s no need to try to be offensive, just discuss things like a human being.

I won’t bother going into detail but generally speaking, the rights of a majority “trumping” the rights of a minority is THE reason our Constitution was written. The fact we are debating is if those rights exist at all, which you stated in your first sentence. I don’t mind going back and forth on that point, but rights being trumped is a very dangerous viewpoint to have.

PS – I would hardly call the ingestion of mercury a medical procedure. That’s like saying abortion has been performed as long as women could throw themselves down stairs.

The fact remains that the point at which life begins is somewhere before the threshold of birth. No rational person would say it is acceptable to perform an abortion the day before the due date. Life begins somewhere in between. Where? That’s the discussion. For most, the answer would not be “conception.” But who are we protecting with laws concerning abortion, whether pro, or anti? Is it the doctor? The mother? The child? Forming my own opinion, those are easy questions to answer.

This is a touchy one. Please read my entire message before jumping to rate it.

The way I see it, physical life does begin at conception. Science proves that. However, cognizance of life begins after birth when the human becomes sentient or self aware of their existence. Therefore, I believe that abortion should be made illegal for it is killing a physical human life form and adoption be made the legal alternative. No-one is saying that pregnant one has to deal with taking care of the human that comes from the action that formed the conception, but that the child conceived from it should have the opportunity to live. …continued:

..cont.

The argument “my body, my choice” fails in the face of reason. That argument says the same as “I’ll have my sexual promiscuity and damn the consequences of possibly forming a life as a result”. This is not to lay the blame only to the woman, but ultimately they are the bearers of new life so the burden lies with them.

Notice also I never mentioned God in this, for this is not a religious issue and I am in truth an atheist.

What would you do: If you where raped by your father, brother, Uncle, Grandfather, a rapist? would you love that baby? What would you do if you knew that child would have SEVERE mental and physical problems that you couldn’t handle,or the medical cost would be extreme? or they would be confined to a motorized chair, drooling, soiling themselves, can’t think,talk, no life? Some people can deal with these situations, I could not. I believe in certain circumstances abortion should be legal, NOT when it is just a convenient way out of a responsibility.

We can argue the fact that life begins at at the time of conception all day and night, I am just glad to see that someone cares!