Anonymous wrote:

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?

So your religion considers cutting down a Christmas tree a parallel to abortion? You feel that every person who is christian feels like they are at war? You sound very very paranoid. What exactly is hateful about discussing a time period of when a fetus is considered alive or not? Believe it or not the people I know alot of die hard Christians who are very pro Jewish state. I guess you want to beat the hand that feeds you (supports your state?).

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.

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.

And that time should be when the baby is viable outside its mother's body.
yes, of course, there is life before that, but "the point when egg meets sperm" is NOT the time to declare "personhood"- 50% of these fertilized eggs do not make it, it is not meant to be. To declare personhood at conception does not mean one is a conservative, it means one is an idiot.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2017528661_apussantorumoutofstep.html

Anonymous wrote:This law will effectively stop ivf and iui treatments in Va. Patients will no longer be able to dispose of extra fertilized eggs.

Anonymous wrote:so you don't want to have the thing up your vagina but you don't mind killing the fetus who'll endure pain an distress while being killed?

hypocrite!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This law will effectively stop ivf and iui treatments in Va. Patients will no longer be able to dispose of extra fertilized eggs.

And this would be a bad thing?!

Anonymous wrote:What do you wanna bet virginia will go blue in 2012 pp? Nothing energizes liberal women like this issue. They WILL be voting, too bad you laid your own trap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you wanna bet virginia will go blue in 2012 pp? Nothing energizes liberal women like this issue. They WILL be voting, too bad you laid your own trap.

+1