Texas Wants Women to Listen to Fetal Hearbeat Before Abortion

[Chuggs]

Yeah and Texas wants GOD in all schools and wants to ban books the Christians don't approve of.

So tell me, what is the difference between this and wanting no God in all schools? Cause I don't see any.

[Chuggs]

I think the politicians sponsoring this bill should have to listen too--listen to women voters and men voters who support women's rights.
If these bozos really cared about preventing unwanted pregnancies they would be funding sex education and contraceptives--but wait, that would make too much sense. They'd rather be on their high horses and trying to assume some phony moral high ground and pretending to care about unborn children. What about children who were already born? Meanwhile if any of these politicians got their interns pregnant, they'd be shipping them off to the nearest abortion.

What people don't understand is that these politicians are supporting certain people. It is not just these politicians getting on a "moral high horse" This is a touchy issue, one which I am kinda in the middle about, honestly. One problem is, there are too many hypocrits on both sides, and not really many (politician or otherwise) willing to listen to the other side.

[Chuggs]

Why the hell do these people think their moral codes should trump anyone else's?

For the same reason that anyone else thinks the same thing. Peolpe on both sides are the same, wanting to push their own beliefs, moral code, or whatever onto other people. Don't pretend that its just one side. Me, I'm kinda on both sides, believe it or not. So I stay clear of the argument.

[Chuggs]

Life begins at moment of conception, eh? Well being that this sentiment is in the Old Testament theme of the physical sacrifice to appease God, and we have since been graced with the New Testament where we learn such things as "if you look at a woman and lust after her, you have sinned and committed adultery", which places the acts of sin in the heart and mind now, instead of physical acts, perhaps thinking about sex should be considered the moment life begins.

Or we could use the verse of said bible that clearly states multiple times that "the blood is the life and the life is the blood" to gauge when life begins. Since fetuses are not infused with blood until day 18-24, before then its a group of cells. If this is a sin to abort one of these, then noone should ever cut off a mole or anyother group of cells as yo uhave ended a life.

More proof Texas is for the most part a place where logic and forward thinking goes to die.

This proves my point that both sides like to force their ideals on the other. It is not just Christians. I am a Christian, I am not ashamed to admit, but I'm on the fence about the issue. But your comment about moles is just silly, and your comment about Texas is offensive, and I'm not even from there.

[Chuggs]

It's appalling and cruel to put a woman through this. Texas acts as if deciding to have an abortion is an easy flip decision for a woman.

For some women it is. Just as leaving children alone while going out to party it up, and like locking children in closets and not feeding them because they wet themselves. IT is certainly not an easy decision for most women--or men for that matter--but lets not group every woman in the same group. There are crappy women just like there are crappy men.

[Chuggs]

It's odd because I thought life was cheaper in Texas, from a death penalty standpoint they don't hold back much. So, let me get this right: State-sanctioned killing is okay, women deciding what happens in their own bodies is not.

This argument makes no sense. Convicted criminals are not unborn children.

[Chuggs]

This is my last post on this issue for now, and it’s notreally on the issue at all, but on the people of both sides. Both sides are thesame (not everyone, obviously, but a great many) in that they want to pushtheir beliefs on others, no matter what. It happens in issues all of the time,religious, political and otherwise. Arguing one's point is fine, but forcing isanother issue entirely. We are civilized people and should act that way.Bashing all supporters of abortion, all those against abortion, non-religiousfolk, and religious folk, is just silly. Saying blank statements about a wholegroup of people, or people in a certain state is ridiculous as well. I knowthat we all do it, heck, I’m sure I do it all of the time, but it is somethingthat we should all try to avoid. As far as the issue goes, I really do stand inthe middle. I lean more to one side, for sure (and it’s probably not the sidethat most of you would think) but I am in the middle. If there is one thingthat I have learned over my thirty some-odd years of life, it’s that there are hypocriteson both sides of almost every issue.
There are certain issues that will likely be solved, andit could be that they are not meant to be solved. It would just be nice if wecould all get along better, even if we disagree.

[Todash]

This argument makes no sense. Convicted criminals are not unborn children.

Actually, this particular argument does make sense. If you are going to argue that unborn children are humans, have life, however you choose to frame it, then that raises the question: should we take any lives? It's not my business to answer that question for others, but for me, personally, my answer is no. As I mentioned before, I wouldn't have an abortion (though I wouldn't prevent you from doing so). I also wouldn't kill a person already born, except as self-defense or defense of others in immediate danger, and even then, my aim wouldn't be to kill but to escape. By that I mean that I won't take up arms against another. I won't consign another to death in a court of law. This is not merely academic; I've been excluded from jury duty because of my stance. Of course other people draw the line at different places for their own reasons. But it absolutely does make sense to me that, for the same reason I would not have an abortion, I also would not kill someone already born, outside of the exceptions I've already mentioned.

This is my last post on this issue for now, and it’s not really on the issue at all, but on the people of both sides. Both sides are the same (not everyone, obviously, but a great many) in that they want to push their beliefs on others, no matter what. It happens in issues all of the time, religious, political and otherwise. Arguing one's point is fine, but forcing is another issue entirely. We are civilized people and should act that way. Bashing all supporters of abortion, all those against abortion, non-religious folk, and religious folk, is just silly. Saying blank statements about a whole group of people, or people in a certain state is ridiculous as well. I know that we all do it, heck, I’m sure I do it all of the time, but it is something that we should all try to avoid. As far as the issue goes, I really do stand in the middle. I lean more to one side, for sure (and it’s probably not the side that most of you would think) but I am in the middle. If there is one thing that I have learned over my thirty some-odd years of life, it’s that there are hypocrites on both sides of almost every issue.
There are certain issues that will likely be solved, and it could be that they are not meant to be solved. It would just be nice if we could all get along better, even if we disagree.

Indeed and well said.

[guido tkp]

well...let's start at the beginning: there is no law about not having god in school: there is a constitutional legal theory, based on the written words and the intent of the founding fathers, that says you cannot pick just one or give any sort of preference to just one: if you are going to teach it, you must teach them all; the constitution is menat to be blind as to the validity of all of these various religions..and, thus, the schools must be as well...that is why religous teaching is best left to the family and the church.

every president since the ruling has said, and the SCOTUS rule was as such...one can have god...even prayer, in school, but to do so you have to let any and all all have equal access and teaching.

now, remind me...rather than lying everyday about this for the past 40-50 years...which christian organization/s have offered up a constitutionally valid plan for accomplishing this ?

second...and i must admit, i'm kinda lost on this one, chuggsy: please point me to the woman who would prefer to have the govt invade their most private moments...the woman who dearly feels that she has been taught so badly and led so far astray that she the needs to have uncle sam right by her side when she goes to visit her gynecologist...

'cause i've searched the world over (and except for a few hookers who'll do anything for an extra $20) this fictional woman...who won't have a problem with the govt and some bassackward legislator/preacher shoving a probe up her personal areas (just because they don't like the way she thinks), does not exist...

as i said, i'm kinda lost on that one...but if you've found a passellful of one-step-behind-their-man/barefoot and pregnant wimps, please let us all know...i'm sure there's a few cro-magnons just ready to make great husbands to these subservient wenchs


and, no, both sides are not the same on this issue...the left in no manner way or form has tried to force its beliefs on anyone: with the left, anyone, as a free citizen encumbered by (or unencumbered) whatever religious philosophy you follow or believe in, can make a choice on your own

the current right wing political philosophy, as evidenced throughout all of these laws and statutes, does not allow for any form of freedom of thinking/choice under any circumstances on this issue: not for serious medical situations...not in cases where a mothers life is at risk - i have 3 daughters...you think i'm gonna let the govt or any frikkin' preacher and his flock of numbnuts decide during a medical emergnecy, who is to live...

not in cases of rape...gang rape...not in cases where a parent rapes a child: most of these bills force a girl raped by her father to get his permission if there is any chance of an abortion being sought...

most are currently worded in ways that could ban most, if not all, birth control...

yup, that's ethical -- and, where exactly is the left just like the right on any of these issues...what law is there that forces anyone to do anything at all against thier will as all of these right-wing laws do?

nowhere, of course...anyone who would say otherwise is competely lying...and in that lie, it tells me 100% of everything i need to know about their version of truth, honesty and how their 'religion' has them deal with real, everyday ethical dilemas: by banning any that do not conform to their way of thinking...once again, something the left has done anywhere on any aspect of this issue.

[exzel]

On the 40th anniversary of Roe vs Wade, I’ve got to give Salon kudos' for having the guts to publish an honest, poignant, and painfully truthful piece.


http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_w...ion_ends_life/