2011-10-19T02:20:15Z opencongress.org tag:opencongress.org,2007:/bill/comments/67474 2011-10-19T02:20:15Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-10-19:/comment/236372 GinoMan2440 The problem is that as a guy, I can only do 3 things to prevent pregnancy 1: not have sex at all (that sounds like a great option, especially once married but not able to support a kid yet) 2: use a condom (prevents a kid and involves having sex, but really changes the experience and breaks the connection with my lady)... 3: get sterilized (great, if I'm 40 and don't want anymore kids, not if I'm 23 and just not ready for a kid yet). A woman on the other hand has so many birth control options, in some cases she can use multiple methods to prevent pregnancy that don't suffer these problems but a guy can't do anything but these three. There are alternatives being produced one of which would work really well and be great except the pharma companies wouldn't get to charge the maintenance fee of continued prescriptions, etc so they're suppressing it. a woman has a lot of options to have sex without being impregnated, what about a guy's right to have sex without impregnating the female? 2011-10-17T20:32:06Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-10-17:/comment/236295 sandersmatz rhian116, In the first place, the federal government does not have the authority to force doctors to give abortions or to force the American tax payer to pay for it! Secondly, less than 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest. This means that more than 99% of the helpless, unborn babies that are killed each year, are killed because some stupid woman didn’t have the brains or moral fortitude to think or care about the consequences of her irresponsible and probably very hasty decision. 2012-01-05T02:04:10Z tag:opencongress.org,2012-01-05:/comment/242410 oakle78 Even into the prison yard the breeze had brought the fresh vivifying air from the fields. But in the corridor the air was laden with the germs of typhoid, the smell of sewage, putrefaction, and tar; every newcomer felt sad and dejected in it. The woman warder felt this, <a href="http://www.northfacelocationsoutlet.net/">north face outlet store</a> though she was used to bad air. She had just come in from outside, and entering the corridor, she at once became sleepy.She carried herself very straight, expanding her full bosom. 2011-10-17T20:32:41Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-10-17:/comment/236296 sandersmatz Here’s an idea… how about these morons be forced to live with the consequences of their bad behavior, at least long enough for the pregnancy to come to term at which point they can put the baby up for adoption. There are millions of loving, responsible people who want to adopt babies in this county. Your argument is a lame one and does not justify murdering 99% of close to 1.25 million innocent babies. 2011-10-18T00:03:57Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-10-18:/comment/236302 neonblk You are aware that abortion was totally legal till about 1890. Hell even up till about 1880 or so the Catholic Church had no problem with it as long as it was done before the first Quickening or Fetal Movement...about 4 months gestation. The most vulnerable members of are society are apparently women since we are the ones that have our reproductive rights but up on the chopping block every so many years. Choice to be irresponsible you say "54% percent of all women that receive an abortion were using some form of contraceptive during the month they become pregnant." Yeah..really irresponsible. 2011-10-18T00:27:08Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-10-18:/comment/236307 neonblk agreed 2011-10-12T16:58:51Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-10-12:/comment/236112 Isis7 If you're going to quote The Declaration of Independence please quote it correctly! "We hold these truths to be self-evident...that they are endowed by THEIR Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Given the time this document was written and the events that were happening at the time, "life" did not mean a "fetus" inside a women. During the time, it was meant as: the ENJOYMENT of LIFE by means of OWNING PROPERTY, among other RIGHT'S of the PEOPLE that were being denied of them by the TYRANT King George III of England. It amazes me that people will try to use any text as evidence to support their PERSONAL beliefs! 2011-10-13T15:03:26Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-10-13:/comment/236147 rhian116 So, does the mother not also have a right to life if the fetus is threatening hers? What if it's a her life vs. the baby's life scenario? What if the mother is single, and the child would go into foster care should the mother die? What if the scenario is an ectopic pregnancy where BOTH lives would be lost? This bill is a joke because people with extreme beliefs, be they religious or otherwise, see no shades of gray- it's all black or white. People against abortion never consider if the one needing the abortion is a 12 year old that was impregnated by her father, or a 25 yr old impregnated by a rapist. What right do any of us have to further violate anyone's body, their life, by forcing a pregnancy they never wanted, asked for, or caused by any other reason than being in the wrong place at the wrong time? 2011-10-18T17:03:25Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-10-18:/comment/236348 ENFEMUS This law proposes that Government funding should not be used for legalized murder. Hitler declared the Jews as not humans and it was completely legal for him to kill them (or German army). Declaring the Fetus as non-human is the same thing. At 6 weeks it has hands, eyes and a beating heart. As well as brain activity. If we declare people to be dead if they have no pulse or brain activity how can we declare these little children as not living? People have their own beliefs evolution is one of them, This mind set is typically for abortion. We can't blame them for following their belief. I personally don't think the Government should be paying for peoples religious beliefs to be carried out. I do feel that emergency situations should be carefully defined in this bill when both lives are at stake. 2012-01-15T10:11:28Z tag:opencongress.org,2012-01-15:/comment/243232 asteidl I oppose all abortions except when a mother's life is endangered by continuation of pregnancy, or when pregnancy is a result of rape or assault. 2011-03-18T14:57:02Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-03-18:/comment/230291 spoyzer The most vulnerable members of our society are without choice and are being murdered for the sake of another's convenience. In fact 55 million of our nations most vulnerable since 1973 have been given over to the worst genocide our world has ever seen all for the sake of someone else's "choice" to be irresponsible. 2012-02-14T02:46:07Z tag:opencongress.org,2012-02-14:/comment/245832 Anastasiafashion <p><strong><a href="http://www.uklouisvuittonsale.net">Louis vuitton uk</a></strong> New York's Fifth Avenue, Louis - Vuitton flagship shop is not merely a <strong><a href="http://www.uklouisvuittonsale.net">Louis vuitton uk sale</a></strong> downtown landmark and wealthy chinese language sweep warehouse is utilized to communicate the designers and designers innovative social and artistic speech belonging to the window. <strong><a href="http://www.uklouisvuittonsale.net">Louis Vuitton Bags </a></strong>.</p> 2011-05-01T10:27:56Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-05-01:/comment/232101 thepodgod How many children have passed through your birth canal buddy? 2011-10-18T00:34:58Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-10-18:/comment/236310 neonblk To the male pro lifers..I feel there is a need to have a bill submitted to force vasectomy on all of you. Yes forced against your will. See how you guys like having your reproductive rights voted upon and stripped. This bill is unnecessary there already are funding restrictions in place. It is just a bill that will allow "religious" groups/persons to not be responsible for a woman that dies because they are more morally inclined to care about the fetus more than the woman on the floor. Where is that woman's right to life exactly in that equation? OH yeah its not there is it since she is nothing more than a walking talking incubator for the next generation...that republicans care so much about.....oh wait MY BAD they already want to cut funding for several government programs and services for poor families. Government needs to grab its sack and stop bending the knee to the religious zealots that are trying to make this country a theocracy. 2011-10-15T11:26:30Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-10-15:/comment/236219 maxim80 It's funny how those most vocal about protecting the 'unborn' are also the ones that call for cuts to the social programs that help the underprivileged kids. Typical religious hypocrisy. 2011-10-15T11:32:08Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-10-15:/comment/236220 maxim80 It's an idiotic bill conceived by hypocrites. If it doesn't die in the Senate it will surely die on Presidents desk...Thank ____. 2011-10-18T18:11:20Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-10-18:/comment/236354 jreddick I feel like very few people here actually read the bill. There is no where in the bill that restricts how people spend their own money on health insurance or what insurance is offered by private health insurance. It only indicates that money specifically appropriated by the health care act cannot be used for abortion coverage. However, it has exceptions for pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, and in cases where the woman's life is in danger from the pregnancy or from giving birth. That means all three of those cases can use money appropriated by the act. Additionally, it states that the government entities receiving money from the act can't discriminate against health care entities that do not wish to offer abortion services. It says nothing at all about being allowed to deny a woman emergency services to save her life if the pregnancy has gone wrong, (usually a miscarriage situation, which is not an abortion). I am neutral on the bill, but people should really read it. 2011-10-18T22:11:08Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-10-18:/comment/236367 severencesc I absolutely don't disagree with you, but I do have to ask since you said "I believe life begins at conception" So will you let your children drink when they are 20 years and 3 months old? Smoke when they are 17 and 3? Have sex? Vote? 2012-02-10T12:11:12Z tag:opencongress.org,2012-02-10:/comment/244601 TrixieTrueheart For those of you who believe life starts at conception, and all babies should be carried to term if possible, what do you think is going to happen to all those babies that are born? You really believe that life with a person who is unwilling or unable to care for a child is better than not being born at all? Yes, adoption is an option. But the child welfare systems everywhere are alreday overwhelmed. Do you think adding more babies to that system will improve that situation any? If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one. But you are delusional if you think a) limiting access to, or criminalizing abortion is going make people think twice about their sexual behavior, b) people are going to stop having abortions or c) that you have the right to tell another woman what she can and cannot do with her body, ESPECIALLY if you do not possess the equipment to carry a child. 2011-10-26T22:52:59Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-10-26:/comment/236784 jesskazen What if the woman is already on welfare and has a child or children and can not in any way afford to pay up to a thousand dollars to have an abortion? Should we as the taxpayers be forced to provide for this child from birth to the age of 18? I would rather have government funds used to terminate unwanted pregnancies than have to deal with the increased crime, education, feeding, and clothing of children for almost 20 years.