Washington Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on February 9, 2005

Click here to view bill details.

This bill has GOT to be a misprint.

It would be much easier if they just required social security numbers to be reported. That way they can easily track and torment any person who chooses to terminate a pregnancy.

What is the point of reporting women who get abortions? Why do we need their medical history and ADDRESS reported, as if they are doing something illegal? Is there any other medical procedure that requires doctor/patient confidentiality to be broken in this manner? This sounds like just another bullying tactic from the anti-choice crowd.

You're right, there's no legitimate reason why anyone should be required to report the killing of an unborn human life. After all, it's a woman's own buisiness and no one else's if she chooses to kill her unborn child. This bill sounds like another wacky scheme from that protect-defenseless-human-life crowd. What a bunch of nuts.

...it's a voluntary act performed upon one's own body. For no other elective (or, in some cases, necessary) procedure is it necessary to report information to the state. In fact, you don't need to report your information to the state to get fertility treatments to induce pregnancy and create human life (which, certainly, is more profound than ending what at best is a potential human life). If you agree with intimidation regarding abortion, it seems you must agree with the same policies regarding inducing pregnancy. Unless, that is, you believe it is the government's job to encourage reproduction, in which case you may want to consider the current tax code which does exactly that, and the reasons for it being that way (hint: it has nothing to do with the costs of raising kids).

"ending what is at best a potential human life"?? You obviously don't know much about biology. From the moment of conception that "potential human life" as you call it has its own (separate) DNA. That's right, all of the genetic code he/she needs is right there. That's a human life, my friend, and the only difference between he/she in the womb and what you and I are now is time and growth.

So long as termination of pregnancy is a legal medical procedure, it should have the same doctor/patient confidentiality that any other medical procedure has.

One cell from any life form has all the information it needs to create an entire life form. However, one cell is not an entire life form. It's not even a viable life form. It's just a cell. Your argument is that a liver is a person. My argument is that a liver is a liver. Genetic information does not a life form make. Sounds like I'm not the one who needs a biology lesson.

He did not say that any cell is a lifeform. Read it again. So where do you draw the line as to where human life begins?

It's futile to debate whether we are dealing with a life form or not, or whether abortion is right or wrong. What needs to be discussed is whether there should be a breach in the sacred code of patient confidentiality - and the answer is MOST DEFINTELY NO! Like all legal medical procedures, it is private and confidential - between the patient and the doctor only - the state has to business in that relationship!

We accomplish nothing unless we debate the roots of the matter. The root of the matter is whether or not a human life is being terminated. If that's the case, then it wouldn't be considered a legitimate medical practice covered by patient-doctor confidentiality.

So long as it IS legal, it IS covered by doctor/patient confidentiality. Debating whether or not it should be legal is another matter.

"From the moment of conception that 'potential human life' as you call it has its own (separate) DNA. That's right, all of the genetic code he/she needs is right there. That's a human life, my friend, and the only difference between he/she in the womb and what you and I are now is time and growth." A single stem cell has its own DNA, and has all the genetic code it needs to grow into a human life, given time and growth in the proper environment, just like a single fertilized egg or cloned cell does. If you remove one stem cell from my body, and destroy it, are you performing an abortion, ending a human life, or ending a potential human life? Potential human life means there is the potential (hence the word), given the proper conditions and time. Remove either of those two criteria (conditions and time), and the potential disappears, thus negating it being a human life any further. When does life begin? When you start living, not when you start existing. Existence, really, means the moment the sperm and egg that will form you are brought into being. Clairvoyance is necessary for that, and the possibility for enforcing preservation of future lives under such conditions would mean removing all rights from every person in existence. Preservation of the testicles and ovaries would trump every other impulse, desire, and activity. If you think it begins at conception, then imagine all the rights you'd have to take away from women to enforce and preserve the rights of the fertilized egg that MIGHT be in her at any given time! Trip and fall? Possible attempted manslaughter. Go out on a weekend bender before you know you're pregnant? Corrupting a minor and providing alcohol to a child. Smoke? Endanger the welfare of a child and get DSS called on you. The question isn't when life begins, it's when, exactly, the rights of a woman end when it comes to her own body and her own life. If you value the rights of the fertilized egg above everyone else's, you must, therefore, remove the rights from everyone who walks and talks already in favor of chancing the possible infringement of the potential human being that might result from any given pregnancy. If that's the kind of society you want us to be, you're going to face some pretty staunch opposition, but hey, to each their own.

You make an interesting point. I wonder why people who are adamantly opposed to abortion are not equally opposed to fertility treatment. If abortion is "messing with God's plan", then wouldn't fertility treatment be the same thing? It can put the baby/babies at great risk. Why the discrepancy in activism?

The difference between infertility and abortion is quite large, actually. Typically, unless a person deliberately sterilizes themself (i.e., vasectomy, histerectomy, tubal ligation, etc), when one has become infertile it is through no fault or conscious effort/decision of their own. In other words, they have done nothing and had no desire to hinder or destroy their own ability to engage in reproductive acts. From a theological and philosophical standpoint, just because one is infertile does not necessarily mean that in the grand scheme of things they were not meant to have children. Procured abortion, on the other hand, is a deliberate effort to destroy an unborn life. Motive matters not--the goal is singularly clear: kill the child, whether he/she is in the earliest or latter stages of development. For those who prefer smaller sentences, the over-arching difference is this: fertility treatment seeks to create new life, while abortion seeks to destroy it. That's why those opposed to abortion are not opposed to fertility treatment.

Ok, I fail to see the logical stream of your arguement, and I suspect that's because THERE IS NONE. The last few paragraphs of your post are based on your premise that life begins when the sperm and egg that will potentially join first come into being. Where did you get that? I didn't see that claim in any of the previous posts. The arguments of the previous posts point towards life beginning at the moment of conception, that is, when the sperm and egg join. It looks to me like you're trying to sound more intelligent than you are in reality. Well, to steal your own words, keep trying.

Who says we get to play God?

The point is that if what's inside a woman's body has rights that are at least equal to the rights of the woman carrying it, you face the prospect of restricting the rights of the woman to preserve the rights of what's inside. After all, if you kill what's inside you, haven't you committed manslaughter, if not murder, according to you? Therefore, how can a woman knowingly participate in any activity that might endanger the welfare of what's growing inside her? Would it be legal for women to drink alcohol or smoke whenever she so much as MIGHT be pregnant? After all, if she does so, isn't she infringing upon the rights of the fetus? There most certainly is a line of logic behind my argument, and it is this: when fetuses have rights that are at least equal to the rights of people who are already outside the womb, you must restrict the rights of all to protect the rights of the fetus. The Constitution, and local laws, as well as almost every American, disagree with that approach, but if that's what you think is necessary, go ahead and try to get it done your way.

In-vitro fertilization: do you support it? How about hormone treatments? How about artificial insemination? At what point is one playing God by creating life, and how does that, in any way, count as acceptable in your sight when playing God in the opposite direction doesn't? Your choice is to be a glaring hypocrite or a rationalizing hypocrite. Make your move.

How will we know what the abortion statistics are if the people performing them don't report them?  This is a no-brainer and doesn't impose on anyone's rights.