Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My somewhat mainstream religion taught me life doesn't begin until the baby takes a breath. Legislating earlier "life" to me is legislating against my religion. Seems to me to be a first amendment issue.

good joke

Note a joke: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Bioethics/Abortion/Fetus_in_Jewish_Law/Beginning_of_Life.shtml

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My somewhat mainstream religion taught me life doesn't begin until the baby takes a breath. Legislating earlier "life" to me is legislating against my religion. Seems to me to be a first amendment issue.

good joke

Note a joke: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Bioethics/Abortion/Fetus_in_Jewish_Law/Beginning_of_Life.shtml

As I think of all religions, good joke! I Jewish law is a great joke No science at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My somewhat mainstream religion taught me life doesn't begin until the baby takes a breath. Legislating earlier "life" to me is legislating against my religion. Seems to me to be a first amendment issue.

good joke

Not a joke. What I was taught in my Reform Jewish temple. A law that says life begins at conception is contrary to my religion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Haven't you heard birth control is bad per almost all the Republican presidential candidates? It's not just about abortion rights. It's about women's rights in general.

No actually I haven't. I have heard that some are personally against using birth control but think it should be available (Santorum) and others don't think the government should mandate that all employers provide free contracptives to their employees but no, I haven't heard almost all say that it is bad. Where did you hear that?

I always hear how people supporting conservative ideals are stupid, white trash etc... but by hearing some of the ignorant and made up ideas of the republican candidates I have deemed a new stereotype, "over reactive and full of paranoia". The idea that some how Republicans are going to take away birth control and mandate religion is the same as the ridiculous Obama not born in the USA or 911 was an inside job.

Yes, except Obama hasn't appeared on TV to proudly tell us that he was not born in the USA. Meanwhile, we get treated to long explanations from top GOP candidates telling us that birth control is bad for women, etc, etc... Sorry if we non-GOP types are in the habit of listening to the things that people say, and assuming that those things have some relation to their beliefs.

Of course, when your front-runner is Mitt Romeny, a man who will take any position he feels might help him get elected, then switch his position at the drop of a hat, I suppose you kind of have to turn that part of your brain off for a while.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My somewhat mainstream religion taught me life doesn't begin until the baby takes a breath. Legislating earlier "life" to me is legislating against my religion. Seems to me to be a first amendment issue.

good joke

Note a joke: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Bioethics/Abortion/Fetus_in_Jewish_Law/Beginning_of_Life.shtml

As I think of all religions, good joke! I Jewish law is a great joke No science at all.

so you can morally abort a baby the day before delivery? nice religion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Haven't you heard birth control is bad per almost all the Republican presidential candidates? It's not just about abortion rights. It's about women's rights in general.

No actually I haven't. I have heard that some are personally against using birth control but think it should be available (Santorum) and others don't think the government should mandate that all employers provide free contracptives to their employees but no, I haven't heard almost all say that it is bad. Where did you hear that?

I always hear how people supporting conservative ideals are stupid, white trash etc... but by hearing some of the ignorant and made up ideas of the republican candidates I have deemed a new stereotype, "over reactive and full of paranoia". The idea that some how Republicans are going to take away birth control and mandate religion is the same as the ridiculous Obama not born in the USA or 911 was an inside job.

Yes, except Obama hasn't appeared on TV to proudly tell us that he was not born in the USA. Meanwhile, we get treated to long explanations from top GOP candidates telling us that birth control is bad for women, etc, etc... Sorry if we non-GOP types are in the habit of listening to the things that people say, and assuming that those things have some relation to their beliefs.

Of course, when your front-runner is Mitt Romeny, a man who will take any position he feels might help him get elected, then switch his position at the drop of a hat, I suppose you kind of have to turn that part of your brain off for a while.

But where did they say they were going to ban birth control. Specifics please if you are going to make the claims.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My somewhat mainstream religion taught me life doesn't begin until the baby takes a breath. Legislating earlier "life" to me is legislating against my religion. Seems to me to be a first amendment issue.

good joke

Note a joke: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Bioethics/Abortion/Fetus_in_Jewish_Law/Beginning_of_Life.shtml

As I think of all religions, good joke! I Jewish law is a great joke No science at all.

so you can morally abort a baby the day before delivery? nice religion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Whether you agree with that or not: If you are a conservative, you should be very worried about a regime that thinks it's OK to issue mandates about what happens between a citizen and their doctor.

Don't be silly. Remember when health care reform was being debated, and many were up in arms about the mere possibility that an end-of-life discussion was required between a health care provider and a patient? I'm sure none of those people are the same people who think it's perfectly OK for the government to mandate an invasive non-medically required - or even medically helpful - procedure before a woman obtains a perfectly legal medical procedure. They're known the world over for their intellectual consistency.

Right?

Wait, what? You're OK with the government inserting (pun very much intended) itself into your relationship with your doctor and your treatment decisions when you agree with the purpose of the intrusion? I see.

Again the issue here is not inserting the government between the patient and doctor. There is a large population of the US that believes the life begins during the time it is deemed ok to abort. If there is proof that life begins during this time then it is considered a separate life and not controlled by the woman's body.

So what if it is? In my earlier post, I noted that we don't require adults to surrender their bodies for the sake of other living adults, even to save their lives (we don't require blood or organ donations, for example). Why would we do so here?

Interesting argument. So you are stating that if it is alive but because it is not alive on it's own we don't mandate other living adults to save their lives? If the fetus is considered alive then the doctors oath as well as the law would mandate everything would be done to preserve or save the life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My somewhat mainstream religion taught me life doesn't begin until the baby takes a breath. Legislating earlier "life" to me is legislating against my religion. Seems to me to be a first amendment issue.

good joke

Note a joke: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Bioethics/Abortion/Fetus_in_Jewish_Law/Beginning_of_Life.shtml

As I think of all religions, good joke! I Jewish law is a great joke No science at all.

so you can morally abort a baby the day before delivery? nice religion.

Actually you are wrong, a baby is not deemed alive until 30 days so if it dies by lack of medical support within that window the baby is considered an abortion. Hopefully this isn't the mainstream view of Jews or else this has really made me question the entire validity of their religion if other ideals are based on these types of blatant ignorance to science.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My somewhat mainstream religion taught me life doesn't begin until the baby takes a breath. Legislating earlier "life" to me is legislating against my religion. Seems to me to be a first amendment issue.

good joke

Note a joke: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Bioethics/Abortion/Fetus_in_Jewish_Law/Beginning_of_Life.shtml

As I think of all religions, good joke! I Jewish law is a great joke No science at all.

so you can morally abort a baby the day before delivery? nice religion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My somewhat mainstream religion taught me life doesn't begin until the baby takes a breath. Legislating earlier "life" to me is legislating against my religion. Seems to me to be a first amendment issue.

good joke

Note a joke: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Bioethics/Abortion/Fetus_in_Jewish_Law/Beginning_of_Life.shtml

As I think of all religions, good joke! I Jewish law is a great joke No science at all.

so you can morally abort a baby the day before delivery? nice religion.

Actually you are wrong, a baby is not deemed alive until 30 days so if it dies by lack of medical support within that window the baby is considered an abortion. Hopefully this isn't the mainstream view of Jews or else this has really made me question the entire validity of their religion if other ideals are based on these types of blatant ignorance to science.

You know what I question? I question people who cut down trees and bring them into their homes in order to decorate them. I question people who use their religion to justify hateful behavior towards others. I question people who think that there is a war on Christianity in the US. Who the hell are you to decide whether or not MY religion is valid??? Are you freaking kidding me?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My somewhat mainstream religion taught me life doesn't begin until the baby takes a breath. Legislating earlier "life" to me is legislating against my religion. Seems to me to be a first amendment issue.

good joke

Note a joke: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Bioethics/Abortion/Fetus_in_Jewish_Law/Beginning_of_Life.shtml

As I think of all religions, good joke! I Jewish law is a great joke No science at all.

so you can morally abort a baby the day before delivery? nice religion.

Actually you are wrong, a baby is not deemed alive until 30 days so if it dies by lack of medical support within that window the baby is considered an abortion. Hopefully this isn't the mainstream view of Jews or else this has really made me question the entire validity of their religion if other ideals are based on these types of blatant ignorance to science.

You know what I question? I question people who cut down trees and bring them into their homes in order to decorate them. I question people who use their religion to justify hateful behavior towards others. I question people who think that there is a war on Christianity in the US. Who the hell are you to decide whether or not MY religion is valid??? Are you freaking kidding me?

Anonymous wrote:It is about degrading women and raping them. It is forcing a woman to SUBMIT to a probe being put up her vagina. Let me repeat a woman must submit to a probe to being put up her vagina to get an abortion. A procedure that is not medically necessary. Would it be ok if the probe was up her anus? this is legislative Rape. Should we make it sharp and pointy and make her cry and scream before she can have a legal procedure? Before a woman can make a Private choice?

Let me repeat. I am never going too a Strore, a mall, a restaurant in Vriginia. and I will tell every single friend of mine considering living in va to boycott it. I will never send my daughter or son to college in Vriginia. I will not frequent a single business located in Virginia.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virginia can't outlaw abortions because of Roe v Wade. What is the point of this bill? Has the governor made any mention of signing it?

A state will eventually pass it, but one would think the Supreme Court would reject it because of the Roe v Wade and Griswold v Connecticut rulings.

Am I missing something here?

Yes. It's unconstitutional. I don't know why people are wasting so much time discussing it and getting heated about it.

I have not gotten thru the whole thread, but I feel the need to address this.

It's unconstitutional now, but all of these laws are meant to being passed knowing they will be challenged in the hopes that Roe will be narrowed or overturned. We are a generation of women who have become complacent because we think Roe and Griswold will protect us, but the law, while slow moving, is not static. It is moving more conservative. The rights we women have taken as givens in our lifetimes
may not be there for our daughters

I don't understand why we are on DCUM complaining and why we are not writing letters and voting for the prochoice candidates.

And if you think it is just abortion rights we need to be worried about, there is now an assault on rights to birth control. Once the personhood law is place, what's next?

You only need to visit the Holocaust Museum to understand how rights can be chipped away so slowly that no one notices until a population is marginalized and second class. The history of the slow but tolerable law changes that affected the Jews so litlle each time that they didn't complain. Bigger changes become easier after so many inconsequential ones.

You are crazy to think that the holocaust victims are the same as not having abortion rights. If anything a stronger parallel to killing the unborn can be drawn to the holocaust IF IN FACT the unborn cut off date for life was erroneous and abortion was indeed determined to be murder.

I knew someone would not understand the holocaust museum reference. It wasnt about the holocaust, it was about the chipping away of rights.

And as for the cut off date in Roe, it was about viability. When could the fetus survive outside the womb? Science has undoubtedly changed that timing now, but ask any mother of a micro preemie and they'll tell you viability doesn't mean anything to survival and quality of life.

Have you ever read the Roe decision?

You still look like an idiot with that comparison. Chipping away of rights based soley on religion is comparable how?

Ok, so the group being discriminated against in Germany was the Jews (and gays and gypsies etc) . In Virginia, it's women. I guess I am an idiot for comparing one group being discriminated against with another group being discriminated against. The key analogy here is that the group being discriminated against at first didn't really recognize the slippery slope they were on. Women need to recognize the slippery slope all over the US.

Haven't you heard birth control is bad per almost all the Republican presidential candidates? It's not just about abortion rights. It's about women's rights in general.