Washington Votes Forum

 This bill needs to be passed in order to slow down (if not stop) the wholesale slaughter of innocent human beings.

 Have you ever wondered why a lib values a murderer's life more than an innocent babies?  Why one has the right to life while the other doesn't?

One can hope that if this bill passes and makes it to the ballot, that the libs in government decide that we the voter's do count, and not repeat past hsitory

I also found this worth reading:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/we-are-living-midst-greatest-human-genoc

DK

Have you ever wondered why fundamentalist right wingers and tea baggers value an embryo's life more than a woman's?  Ever wonder why they prefer women to have the "choice" of a back alley abortion? Maybe because they see women as sluts?  I mean hey, if she had sex, she's a ***,right?

Maybe your mom should have aborted you? Or maybe she was Pro-Life?

When did this idea that gametes were 'human beings' with a 'right to life' get started?  The original Abrahamic religion, Judaism, said that causing the loss of a fetus was a property crime and that the fetus wasn't a person with any sort of 'rights' until it was half-way down the birth canal.  Just from a religious stand point isn't it more likely that a loving omnipotent God doesn't insert a soul into a fetus that is never going to be born - the fact is more gametes and fetuses aren't live birthed because of silent and obvious miscarriages than abortions.   Makes all the fretting and acrimony around the abortion issue kind of pointless, doesn't it?

This is not a choice that others can make for someone actually 'walking the mile'. The risk of death is 7x greater carrying a child to term than it is for first trimester abortions.  And it wouldn't matter if the fetus actually were a 'person' - if you can't be forced to donate blood to save someone else's life you can't be forced to be an incubator for another against your will either.

The right of society to interfere occurs at the moment that someone else can take responsibility for the support of the child - until then its up the only person who can - the gestating mother.  Convince them, cajole them, heck even pay them to try and carry the child to term, but once you start forcing them you've crossed the line.

No one wants people to have abortions just like no one wants them to ride motorcycles on the freeways, but in the end its the citizen's choice in a free society.

The issue is the sanctity of life and whether a society will protect the weakest of humans whether six weeks or 95.  The soul is there when life begins. The test is what we do with the real knowledge of the pregnancy.  Not sterile textbook data detached from our humanity.  Now, what do we do? 

In fact, the ancient Jews could take an eye for an eye; a life for a life.  Miscarriages are not murder; they are a reminder that we are human in that we cannot guarantee live births, 100% of the time. There have been learned opinions that the ruling in Roe vs Wade was the act of judges with an agenda.  That the facts of the case could not have produce the ruling the majority came up with; in other words, it was a stretch. Like so many that have deliberately changed, if we don't have to feel guilty about things or actions, we can do whatever we want.

It has taken decades of propaganda liberalism by Fabian progressives like Margaret Sanger, to change the culture 180 degrees from what was once understood to be the right thing to do.  As a black person, I am sickened by her 'whitewashing' her real agenda; to decrease the population of inferior persons of the darker races.  I am sickened further by the libereral black pastors who helped promote this genocide over time and how many of these so-called 'services' are in black neighborhoods!  If the child could speak for itself, it's no doubt it would choose life just like you or me.  We are wired for it. BTW, we talked incessantly to our kids when I was pregnant and they recognized our voices when we whipered their names.  You may want to find the video called 'Silent Scream'.  I think will give you a less narrow perspective of how 'aware' these unborn children are. They are very, very sensitive to pain the more they are developed.  How would you like to have your skull punctured?  I tremble at the knowledge of the details of late term abortions.

Of course it can be difficult for the gestating mother when the situation is brutal rape for example.  Again, this is where it is vitally important what kind of society we are.  I would love to think that the second graders that we performing oral sex in the Oakland Elementary school last month, not once, but twice, could just enjoy their childhood without all the pressure that's placed on kids today to awaken their sexuality.  You have heard of the term our kids have for their 'special' friends; FWB--friends with benefits--sexual benefits!  The hard push to desensitize our kids to things of a moral nature only help to increase their choice to engage in these activities. Pregnant?  No worries, mate; the counselor can arrange for our daughters to have an abortion and unless she bleeds out from a complication, parents won't even know about it until we are called to identify them at the morgue.  Given how harsh some situations can become when a pregnancy happens, it's no wonder they see this is their only solution. 

There has to be balance.  We are allowing our young people to learn the wrong lesson about the honor and beauty of bringing a new life into the world.  BTW, you have been misinformed.  An omnipotent, loving Creator is wise enough to know once we engaged ourselves in being obsessed with ourselves by the introduction of sin, we would need an operator's manual to keep us running smoothly and to operate within manufacturer's specs (His).  Madalyn Murray O'Hare and some other liberal progressives saw to it that that wouldn't be happening and the rest, as they say, is history.  I have a true, personal story of a school librarian that railled against the 10 Commandments being posted in the library  even in a historical context.  What a shock she received when she went to her equipment closet to find her brand new electronics were stolen!  She was furious to be ripped off!  Imagine that?

Commandments 1-4 specifically deals with our vertical relation w/God and 5-10 deals with our horizontal relationship with others.  10 Basic Rules for harmonious, loving/respectful relationships; how efficient is that?

healthcareforpeace:

Have you ever wondered why fundamentalist right wingers and tea baggers value an embryo's life more than a woman's

I'm not sure where this comes into the argument, but on one I know will value an embryo's life over a life woman, or will disallow an abortion over a pregnancy due to rape.

Thank you for putting a radically-hysterical spin on this bill.

DK

No the issue isn't the 'sanctity of life' because we don't save every ovum (with half a soul?), we don't save every sperm, we don't save the tip of my finger that gets cut off into the salad, you aren't obligated to save a relative with a bone marrow transplant.  This idea that a fertilized ovum is a person with rights at fertilization is a new fiction created relatively recently - wasn't what they thought in the past, wasn't what the god of Abraham ordered, wasn't even what early Catholic thought was  -it was just spit out whole cloth by the leaders of some popular cults, that's all.  And abortions are not murder, because that is illegal killing and abortions are not illegal and not even killing in many minds.

As to Roe v Wade it isn't an 'agenda' its common sense - in a society where the government is proscribed from being intrusive on the individual a decision like this can only be made by the one who is actually going to have to 'walk the mile'.  No reasonable person thinks that people should be able to force someone to undergo duty as an incubator or risk their life whether its for another or not.

And please don't use the exceptions to justify this intrusion, over 90% of abortions are first trimester just as most miscarriages are in this time period, and the fantasy - yes IF a fetus could talk, just like IF an unfertilized ovum could talk, or a sperm, or that cut off tip of my finger.  Don't make a cartoon out of the discussion. 

And since you bring up a religion - if your sect says you shouldn't have abortions then you shouldn't.  But since as Americans we all have an absolute right to NOT be your sect that has nothing to do with this discussion.  Many Christian churches support the right to choose, if your particular sect doesn't that's fine but don't force others to act as if they share your sect's purely religious beliefs.

But I agree there has to be a balance and trying to declare a gamete a person isn't it.  How about common sense - when the fetus is too immature to survive outside the womb the owner of the womb gets to decide, and once it is, then society can get involved?

And your off the wall Commandment story - our laws are based on pagan Roman and Anglo Saxon legal traditions - theft was illegal in our historical societies long before Christianity existed.  Yes the teacher has a right to not have religious indoctrination on the wall and still retain the expectation to be free from theft - one has nothing to do with the other. 

 Hey Bob,

Your right, many christian churches do support the right to choose, but you forget they support the right to choose within parameters.

Using abortions for birth control like they do in many urban areas is abhorrent.  And, since you brought it up, why isn't live-birth abortions against the law (any percentage is too much)?  The child is viable, and only by some liberal definition it is not defined a person because it hasn't passed through the birth canal (which by the way may pave the way for many people who murdered.  All they got to do is prove the person they killed was taken by cesarian.  Remember what they say about killing?  The first one is hard, the rest come easier, the same can be applied to abortions, hence its role in birth control.

Then there is the Eugenic question, if the baby doesn't fit your "view" (for instance having a girl instead of a boy) of what your baby should be, then just abort the fetus.  Laugh and deride, but remember in China the state legalized abortion and then mandated the two-child law...  Could it happen here?  Maybe, maybe not but with all the environmental whackos in the government, my money is yes it could and probably will, in due time.

IF, you want legalized abortions, so be it, but make it so my tax dollars DO NOT support it.  Which makes you wonder how many abortions would be preformed if not payed for or subsidized by the state.

DK

M_DragonKnight:

 And, since you brought it up, why isn't live-birth abortions against the law (any percentage is too much)? 

Hmmm it is in Washington state as per RCW 9.02.110.  After viability one can only be performed if the health or life of the mother is at risk.  And even potentially viable age fetus abortion rates are less than 2% with a large % of those being in children less than 14 (where often letting the fetus go to term could be fatal to the mother regardless of the delivery method)

M_DragonKnight:

IF, you want legalized abortions, so be it, but make it so my tax dollars DO NOT support it.

BobVB:

As long as you make sure my tax dollars don't support any wars or executions ok?

 Depends on the war, and as far as executions go, how about lobotomies instead (but I think we already have too many politicians so that might not be a good thing)?   

DK

 This bill isn't about "saving" but codifyiing into law that which is true.

Since the pagans of Rome, the Jews of Old Testament, and the over 2,000 years of the existance of Christianity, science and technology have advanced. Common sense here. Both science and technology prove a distinct individual is created at the moment of conception. No two people have exactly the same DNA.

Science has concluded that a distinct individual is created at the moment of conception. That this conclusion has been rejected by those entrenched in the lies perpetrated for half a century is no surprise. Too many have benefitted from and will benefit from the rejection of truth.

The problem is society decided the few members of a court, the U.S. Supreme Court, persuaded by cultural ignorance and cultural desire to have sexual relations without it's inherent consequences (pregnancy), had the right and authority to determine a scientific and moral question could be answered by them. This was the case in other countries whose courts legalized abortion.

A body of a few men decided a human being, growing and developing in its mother's womb, was chattel. In other words, the newly created human being was not human but a slave to the desire of it's mother.

This then is the crux of the matter.

The real questions are these:

1. In a democratic republic such as ours, is it morally and ethically, as well as constitutionally, proper to allow 9 unelected men to decide who lives and who dies?

2. Is it morally and ethically proper to give one group of people, pregnant women, the right to decide whether or not a distinct individual will live or die?

3. Is the advancement of science and technology, used to destroy human life, a good for the common welfare of society?

Lainie59:

 No two people have exactly the same DNA.

Lainie59:

Science has concluded that a distinct individual is created at the moment of conception.

No, science just says a new random sequence of DNA happens at conception, sometimes.  If that makes it an 'individual' then take this 'individual' and let someone else gestate it.  If its an 'individual' than it needs no particular person to continue existing, right?

Lainie59:

1. In a democratic republic such as ours, is it morally and ethically, as well as constitutionally, proper to allow 9 unelected men to decide who lives and who dies?

BobVB:

The problem is you don't understand the question - if its an individual than it needs no particular person for its survival - develop the technology that can allow any gamete to be raised by someone else and you might have a point.  Until then the real question is 'Does anyone have to use their body and risk their own life against their will?'  All our legal precedence and common sense says 'no'.  Society can get involved when a true individual is involved and someone else can take care of it.

 And you Bob have twisted the argument.  Just like most libs do.

And to further the argument:

`The Most Dangerous Place for an African-American is in the Womb!'
Friday, February 25, 2011
By Penny Starr


(CNSNews.com) – Pro-life activist Alveda King reacted to the removal on Friday
of a billboard advertisement in Manhattan that featured a black girl and the
statement "the most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb."

"It is an outrageous act of censorship that this billboard was taken down," King
said. "This billboard should be posted in every city of the country.

The billboard message's placement comes in the wake of a report released last
month by the New York City Department of Health that revealed an abortion rate
of 41 percent of all pregnancies in the city in 2009 -- with 59.8 percent of
those to African-American women.

"The message of this billboard is totally accurate," King said in a statement
issued by Priests for Life where she is the director of African-American
Outreach. "The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb!"

She added: "And it should provoke outrage in the African-American community—not
because it is racist, but because of the truth it reveals; the truth that is
being kept from the African-American community."

The billboard message was a project of thatsabortion.com, which paid for the
message as part of its LifeAlways project.

"There is a battle being waged in the United States that has taken more lives
than any foreign war or act of terrorism," the Web site states about the
project. "The enemy is abortion.

"Its supporters include the main stream media, liberal representatives in
government, and Planned Parenthood, the country's largest abortion provider,"
the statement says.

CNN reported on Friday that Lamar Advertising, which owns the billboard, decided
to take down the message after people who opposed it threatened workers in the
building located next to the billboard.
The Rev. Al Sharpton had reportedly planned a protest at the site of the
billboard on Saturday and pro-abortions groups had also complained about the
pro-life message.

Mary Alice Carr, vice president of communications for NARAL Pro-Choice New York,
said in a statement that the billboard was "attacking women for choosing
abortion while simultaneously destroying family planning."

But King said the billboard should have provoked a different kind of outrage.

"Black people in New York and all over the country should be outraged at the
numbers of black babies we lose every single day to abortion," King said. "An
astonishing 60 percent of African-American pregnancies in the five boroughs of
New York City end in abortion.
"That's unfathomable," King said.



http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/alveda-king-removal-pro-life-nyc-billboa

DK

As usual there's always one more thing:

Planned Parenthood is worthy of the taxpayer funding it receives. Keep abortion safe, legal and rare. And keep your nose out of other peoples' private lives! You have no moral authority in a woman's right to make a decision that affects her pregnancy; you have no legislative authority to make her give birth.  Don't like abortion? Then don't have one.  There, now you can spend your free time explaining why the 'small government' you yearn for is always large enough to deprive women of their right to do what they choose. Alternatively, try to come up with an answer to explain why the best government is one that regulates businesses sparingly, but always manages to regulate the reproductive activity of women.  And don't forget: the purpose of sex is pleasure, not procreation. If you disagree, then our next HB must make vasectomies illegal; outlaw masturbation; 'declare' unwed mothers unfit for parenting by reason of mental illness; criminalize condoms; and make adultery a felony, unless it results in a pregnancy. Pro-lifers are anti-thinkers. You move as a pack and you have faith that you're right, and any disagreements must come from 'libs' who 'twist the argument'. Well, I'm a Republican. You know nothing about the Constitution, US or Washington state. If you'd think for half a second you'd understand you have the right you need to make your choice, but you want to deprive other people the right to make their's. But you don't think, do you? How did you become so pompous? You're smart enough to tell others what to do, but too dumb to understand a different point of view. I hope you're not Republicans. You'd make a mockery of the entire party. I hope you're one of those too-angry-to-make-a-coherent-statement Tea Baggers, who thinks the existence of poor government officials mean we should get rid of government, and not the officials. Enjoy your rant, while you sit on the pot and do nothing about jobs, banking cheats, and legislative gridlock. Enjoy Rush's latest spittle-filled loathe-fest about President Obama and Democrats. The problem isn't Democrats-- the problem is idiots like you making the Republican party platform into a tribute band for 1978 social policy. Grow up. Everybody else did.

you cannot legislate 'the right thing to do,' because that is different for everybody. These arguments you make are ridiculous-- scientists know the moment of conception is the beginning of an individual's life? Get real. The sex of an fetus isn't even fixed until the second trimester. If you love the Bible, then live by it. You have no right to ask other adults to live by your set of rules. If you don't like what other people do with their bodies, then move to Pakistan. I hear the Taliban is hiring. Religious fanatics are always in short supply in the land of 'Ritual Suicides to Make a Greater Point.'

 I'll tell you what, you can do whatever you want to to you and your body.  Just don't use my tax money to help support your habits, your killing of an innocent or whatever else you think you're entitled to.

In other words, if you can afford to do it yourself and afford any consequence, than go right ahead.  IF not, then don't and don't expect people to pay for it, it's that kind of mentality that helped get the state where it is today.

Women have plenty of CHOICE.  Oral Contraceptives, barriers, sterilization, heaven forbid, abstinence.  Lots of choices right up to conception!

 Great bill, needs to be passed.

tlfifer:

Great bill, needs to be passed.

Yeah it probably does, but it won't.

Why?

Because the legislature in power would rather put an innocent life to death than someone who has killed several people because that would be inhumane.  And not saying a fetus is life allows these people to have a clear conscience when they spend your tax money killing the innocent lives.

VOTE THE BATRASTARDS OUT

You bet. And people who smoke or drink should go to jail, since nicotine and alcohol can harm fetuses

GwenHughes:

And people who smoke or drink should go to jail, since nicotine and alcohol can harm fetuses

Nice tired rebuttal Gwen....

But, that is part of what the Cigarette settlement was for that, to help treat those suffering from cigarette smoke, but you know who made it part of the general fund...  But we can fix that by slapping another 50 cent tax on cigarettes, as well as 50 cent tax on all the alchol being served in the state.  Why punish those who don't contribute to the problem?  But his is suppose to be a discussion about the pros and cons of Bill 1656, the Right to Life Bill...  And here in WA state, we have taken the stand that those that rape, murder and terrorize innocent people deserve to live, while innocent (fetuses) life deserve to die...