New GOP Bill Would Deny Abortions To Women, Even In Life-Threatening Situations

Signing of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban on November 5, 2003

Signing of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban on November 5, 2003

“A new version of a related bill would allow hospitals to deny abortion care to a woman even if her life is in danger.” I don’t want to begin the long list or reasons as to why this would violate woman’s right to choose, their body and their life. It also asks doctors to go against the Hippocratic oath: “Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.” Via Raw Story:

Engulfed by criticisms from women’s advocates, House Republicans have reportedly given up on legislative language that would deny some rape victims the ability to seek federally-assisted abortion coverage.

But according to the leading abortion rights group NARAL, a new version of a related bill would allow hospitals to deny abortion care to a woman even if her life is in danger. (NARAL obtained an advance copy of the new markup.)

A spokesperson for NARAL told Raw Story that Republicans have added a provision to H.R 358, the “Protect Life Act,” sponsored by Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-PA), to amend the Affordable Care Act in a way that could preclude women in life-threatening situations from receiving an abortion.

[Continues at Raw Story]

, , , ,

  • quartz99

    Well sure. Let the woman die and someone else can take her job. I mean, after all, these folks don’t think women should be working or living their own lives anyway and they _did_ promise to put jobs first…

    What I don’t understand is how these SOBs keep getting re-elected. Or why any woman or minority ever, ever, ever would vote for them. Because they must be, unless every election is in fact rigged…

    • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

      Remember that kid in school who had a shitty life but felt a little better when he was taking pleasure from making other people as miserable as he was?

      That was the GOP in its most primal incarnation.

    • David Frost

      I think abortion is only acceptable if it preserves life but the “party of no” has to take things and push it over a ledge it never was supposed to be pushed over.

  • Anonymous

    Well sure. Let the woman die and someone else can take her job. I mean, after all, these folks don’t think women should be working or living their own lives anyway and they _did_ promise to put jobs first…

    What I don’t understand is how these SOBs keep getting re-elected. Or why any woman or minority ever, ever, ever would vote for them. Because they must be, unless every election is in fact rigged…

  • Test

    I wonder what is more “affordable”, the medical cost of the abortion, our there medical costs tosave the mothers life after complications?

  • Test

    I wonder what is more “affordable”, the medical cost of the abortion, our there medical costs tosave the mothers life after complications?

  • DeepCough

    It’s not okay for government to have any say in the medical insurance affairs of Americans, but it is perfectly acceptable for government to deny women the choice to even have a medical abortion (one where the fetus must be aborted to save the mother’s life or to abort an inviable fetus) according to the Republicans, who don’t want government interfering in the private affairs of Americans.

    • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

      I know…right? Chinese acrobats look in awe at the mental logic gymnastics that the GOP executes every day.

    • DEB ATE

      Lets say a person may die if you don’t kill this man. . . Weather or not you would or would not i can not force you to kill someone right?

      Dr Seuss has left the blog lol

      • quartz99

        Except that’s not what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about is removing a bit of tissue that is either a) already dead and can cause massive infection if not removed before it starts decomposing, b) not going to be capable of living on its own or c) going to die anyway when the woman carrying it dies from being denied a procedure that could save her life. Denying an abortion to a woman who needs it to save her life isn’t somehow going to miraculously save that fetus. In that situation, it’s going to die anyway one way or the other and it’s a matter of not letting it take the woman with it.

  • DeepCough

    It’s not okay for government to have any say in the medical insurance affairs of Americans, but it is perfectly acceptable for government to deny women the choice to even have a medical abortion (one where the fetus must be aborted to save the mother’s life or to abort an inviable fetus) according to the Republicans, who don’t want government interfering in the private affairs of Americans.

  • iii

    The article is using the same point many pro-lifers have been using for years. That abortion goes against the section of the Hippocratic oath:

    “Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.”

    The abortion debate has basically put mother against child. Maybe we should develope a system in society that doesn’t pressure women or guilt women into murdering their child. I know this article is specifically refering to cases when the mother’s life is endangerd. Perhaps abortion should only have been legal to save a mother’s life; that way, life in general, wouldn’t be so trivial.

    • Hadrian999

      women should just be baby factories liker god intended…..

      • iii

        I don’t believe in God, trying to put me into the religious categore won’t help your point.

    • that1guy

      Abortion at what point in gestation is a choice between mother and child? I’ve posted this on every abortion debate article in the past 2 months, but the vast majority of abortions occur before a fetus has taste buds or is larger than the palm of your hand. Hardly a “child vs. mother” quandary in most cases. Pro-lifers either imagine or want people to imagine that a fetus, with the real and arguably sacred POTENTIAL to become a child, is the same thing as a born child, or that all or most abortions occur on a fetus that is pretty much viable and ready to be out in the world. That’s where my major objection to the whole movement comes in. If the Pro-life agenda were just about stopping the anomalous suffering of viable or close to viable fetuses, I’d have a lot more sympathy for it. But as it stands, considering the way the social reality of this medical procedure compares to the way pro-lifer’s characterize it, I don’t want to give them an inch for fear of losing a mile. I know that this is a slippery slope argument, which should a red flag for anyone with a skeptical outlook, but the evidence that the anti-abortion movement’s efforts will not stop at allowing individual practices to deny life-saving procedures, or at any one of the piecemeal reforms they run under the radar, is in the history of pro-life rhetoric. Give them this and you’re just one step closer anything more than 8 cells will being legally protected until birth, regardless of the health or general well-being of its mother.

      • iii

        First of all, even as a Pro-life person I support the right to an abortion in the case when a mother’s life is at stake.

        To answer your question that you claim all pro-lifers skirt: No one. No one has a set scale in time that answers when “human” life begins or ends. I’ve heard 24 weeks, however from what it seems human life gets more viable outside the mothers womb due to advances in technology. If you agree with me this far, during most normal pregnancies (when the mother’s life isn’t in danger) and a decision has been made to abort there are two possibilites

        1. That the abortion is eliminating nothing more than a cyst.

        2. The abortion is killing a human being (not the potential for a human being)

        Which is the most prudent choice? ( in a situation when the mother’s life isn’t threatened)

        My answer is that (until you can scientifically derive metrics of when human life begins) I will continue take the side of prudence and safety for all humans who cannot defend themselves. I am an agnostic, my thoughts on this matter are objective. Again I think the abortion debate has only created this weird paradox where human mothers are being taught to see their offspring as a threat or property. Maybe all mother’s under 23 should be given free college tutition and day care; if that will bring about less abortions, I am for it.

        • Nomos

          If you’re so concerned about how “human mothers” are being taught to view their spawn, then maybe we should all just let THEM decide for themselves how to feel and what to do. I know that sounds like a crazy motherfucking idea, but it just might be the least retarded option.

  • iii

    The article is using the same point many pro-lifers have been using for years. That abortion goes against the section of the Hippocratic oath:

    “Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.”

    The abortion debate has basically put mother against child. Maybe we should develope a system in society that doesn’t pressure women or guilt women into murdering their child. I know this article is specifically refering to cases when the mother’s life is endangerd. Perhaps abortion should only have been legal to save a mother’s life; that way, life in general, wouldn’t be so trivial.

  • Thatsjustwrong

    I will begin stockpiling coat hangars and make a fortune on the underground abortion market if this goes through!

  • Thatsjustwrong

    I will begin stockpiling coat hangars and make a fortune on the underground abortion market if this goes through!

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    I know…right? Chinese acrobats look in awe at the mental logic gymnastics that the GOP executes every day.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Remember that kid in school who had a shitty life but felt a little better when he was taking pleasure from making other people as miserable as he was?

    That was the GOP in its most primal incarnation.

  • mrtastycakes

    Besides the fact that the Republicans are no longer pursuing this agenda, I call bullshit.

    “But according to the leading abortion rights group NARAL, a new version of a related bill would allow hospitals to deny abortion care to a woman even if her life is in danger. (NARAL obtained an advance copy of the new markup.)”

    Oh, the Republicans gave a fresh, incendiary copy to a PAC that opposes them. That’s awful nice. Where is it? The bill that’s linked to doesn’t include that language.

  • mrtastycakes

    Besides the fact that the Republicans are no longer pursuing this agenda, I call bullshit.

    “But according to the leading abortion rights group NARAL, a new version of a related bill would allow hospitals to deny abortion care to a woman even if her life is in danger. (NARAL obtained an advance copy of the new markup.)”

    Oh, the Republicans gave a fresh, incendiary copy to a PAC that opposes them. That’s awful nice. Where is it? The bill that’s linked to doesn’t include that language.

  • Haystack

    I’m okay with Republican taxpayers not having to pay for abortions if they’re okay with me not having to pay for their wars.

    • David Frost

      …what about pro-life democrats? I’d rather pay for a public option like I would have loved too but not have any of my tax dollars funding abortions.

  • Haystack

    I’m okay with Republican taxpayers not having to pay for abortions if they’re okay with me not having to pay for their wars.

  • DEB ATE

    This story’s a bit off… If i am not mistaken it makes it illegal to force a private hospital or doctor to perform an abortion. You must agree if i am correct it would be a violation of rights to force an individual or private business to preform something that violates what they believe.

    • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

      Unfortunately this leads to the conundrum of whats expected of a person of faith whenever they take a job that might compromise that faith.

      Example: a practicing Orthodox Jew decides he wants to work in a non-Kosher butcher shop…but doesn’t want to handle any pork products…even with gloves, because that compromises his religious beliefs. Is the problem that his beliefs are incompatible with the job he’s taken…or that the work unreasonably expects him to break ways with his faith?

      If you enter into a field that raises these issues and understand that you may be asked to serve people of other faiths…picking and choosing when and if you will serve them indicates an unrealistic attitude toward the commitments you make as an employee. People whose faiths dictate to them what they can and cannot do must make responsible career choices. You cannot be an astronaut that needs a ride back to Earth every Sunday for services. You can’t be a fighter pilot that only fires missiles on Thursdays. If your faith compromises your ability to meet your expected responsibilities in a career…you need another career.

      When its just an issue with no impact on performance, like a Holiday where you won’t be on duty, or non-participation in the events of another faith…fine…but when it moves into the sphere of “I’d let the mother die rather than remove a clot of tissue that is compromising her health.” …then we move into the realm of a person being too compromised to make decisions regarding other people’s well being.

      • DEB ATE

        I agree 2 an extent Vox. But what if its a catholic hospital they don’t believe in abortion and its private and taking a job at a private hospital means you can follow your faith. You cant violate someones rights…<? right?

        • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

          Good point. A religious backed/funded hospital would be an ideal job for persons of faith…and everyone dealing with the hospital would walk thru the doors knowing what they were dealing with. It wouldn’t be a ‘surprise’ to discover in the middle of a health crisis that your doctors religion affects their choice of treatments. If people of faith find a job where their faith is acceptable as part of their work…thats all good. My objection, of course, still stands when dealing with public services, government services, private but secular institutions etc (and it should be noted that this is why I reject all plans where govt gives money to religious institutions…it creates a relationship where either money is being to spread that faith indirectly…or where a church may find itself with requirements that are onerous because of the money they receive. Either way, its a bad policy.)

          • quartz99

            The problem is that in many areas, ALL the hospitals are religious. My son was born in a Catholic hospital, and not by my choice. It was the only hospital for about three hours from my house. This is the same problem with allowing pharmacists to “refuse service based on their conscience” with regard to birth control or the morning after pill. It’s not like there’s always the choice to just go somewhere else. So what is really being legislated is that the woman’s health is meaningless because her ability to live might infringe on someone else’s religion, which is obviously SO much more important. I mean, she’s just a woman, after all.

          • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

            An equally good point. When no other service is available, is it ethical to permit a religious belief that dominates a critical service to dictate matters of life and death over people who have no other options? I’d agree that its grossly unethical…and should probably be illegal…but the writing of such a statute would have to be incredibly careful.

            The surprising thing is that, despite my total contempt for almost all world religions (I have a faint tolerance and admiration toward Zen philosophy…once divorced from religious connotations) I actually support the right of people to have a religion and even to be idiots because of it…I just withdraw that support as soon as they decide their faith needs to impact on everyone outside their own home and church.

            I’m uncomfortable with anything that dictates the right self-determine the course of one’s own life…especially with regard to dictatorial external decisions about whether a religion meets the litmus test for acceptability. So much for potential for wrong on either side leaves me nervous about any tampering at all.

            I’d still maintain that a doctors ideal state of mind is the one my grandfather possessed. he was Catholic, devout, and so was his RN (his wife). Faith aside, they treated all people the same way…medicine first, faith kept out of it. I’ll never know if he came into crisis over the abortion issue (he was a country doctor…not an ObGyn…but he had to be a jack of all trades at times). I imagine that he would do whatever he could to save both lives…and then fall back if necessary on preserving the life of the mother. He was just that kind of guy. (His only self confessed crime was purchasing black market antibiotics in ww2…because drugs were hard to come by in war time…and people were dying of ordinary infections at home when they could have been treated easily. He learned that he could get antibiotics illegally…and as far as he was concerned it was the demand of his Hippocratic oath…if he knew of a way to save lives…he must choose that way, even if it conflicted with laws.)

          • David Frost

            If ALL hospitals have theistic origins then you atheists don’t have a leg to stand on when you think we theists are responsible for every single bad thing that ever has, is or will happen and not a drop of good in all of it.

        • quartz99

          Yeah because it’s totally better and so much more civilized to let the woman die, thereby guaranteeing that the already unviable fetus also dies when she does. Why save one life when you can guarantee two deaths? But she’s just a woman. HER right to live doesn’t mean a damn thing when the only medical care available to her might have to ignore their stone age fairy tales for a few hours.

    • Jordan

      I’m really not even OK with any _business_ taking a moral stance on anything, let alone who deserves to live or die. Not to mention how messed up it is that a hospital would even be affiliated with a religion, especially now. The Hippocratic oath is above and beyond personal religious preference, and it’s unfortunate that it’s interpretation would even be up for debate. So, here, I would have to agree, VoxMagi, that “If your faith compromises your ability to meet your expected responsibilities in a career…you need another career.”

      • Jordan

        Would also like to expound on this further towards the obvious, but this not only affects the doctor’s career choice, as discussed, but the career choice of politicians who have a religious motive in our legislature. The last time I checked, we aren’t living under Sharia law or our interpretation(s) of the Bible… or are we?

        • quartz99

          that depends on which politician you talk to. A great many of them would like to see exactly that.

  • DEB ATE

    This story’s a bit off… If i am not mistaken it makes it illegal to force a private hospital or doctor to perform an abortion. You must agree if i am correct it would be a violation of rights to force an individual or private business to preform something that violates what they believe.

  • DEB ATE

    Lets say a person may die if you don’t kill this man. . . Weather or not you would or would not i can not force you to kill someone right?

    Dr Seuss has left the blog lol

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Unfortunately this leads to the conundrum of whats expected of a person of faith whenever they take a job that might compromise that faith.

    Example: a practicing Orthodox Jew decides he wants to work in a non-Kosher butcher shop…but doesn’t want to handle any pork products…even with gloves, because that compromises his religious beliefs. Is the problem that his beliefs are incompatible with the job he’s taken…or that the work unreasonably expects him to break ways with his faith?

    If you enter into a field that raises these issues and understand that you may be asked to serve people of other faiths…picking and choosing when and if you will serve them indicates an unrealistic attitude toward the commitments you make as an employee. People whose faiths dictate to them what they can and cannot do must make responsible career choices. You cannot be an astronaut that needs a ride back to Earth every Sunday for services. You can’t be a fighter pilot that only fires missiles on Thursdays. If your faith compromises you ability to meet your expected responsibilities in a career…you need another career.

    When its just an issue with no impact on performance, like a Holiday where you won’t be on duty, or non-participation in the events of another faith…fine…but when it moves into the sphere of “I’d let the mother die rather than remove a clot of tissue that is compromising her health.” …then we move into the realm of a person being too compromised to make decisions regarding other people’s well being.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Unfortunately this leads to the conundrum of whats expected of a person of faith whenever they take a job that might compromise that faith.

    Example: a practicing Orthodox Jew decides he wants to work in a non-Kosher butcher shop…but doesn’t want to handle any pork products…even with gloves, because that compromises his religious beliefs. Is the problem that his beliefs are incompatible with the job he’s taken…or that the work unreasonably expects him to break ways with his faith?

    If you enter into a field that raises these issues and understand that you may be asked to serve people of other faiths…picking and choosing when and if you will serve them indicates an unrealistic attitude toward the commitments you make as an employee. People whose faiths dictate to them what they can and cannot do must make responsible career choices. You cannot be an astronaut that needs a ride back to Earth every Sunday for services. You can’t be a fighter pilot that only fires missiles on Thursdays. If your faith compromises you ability to meet your expected responsibilities in a career…you need another career.

    When its just an issue with no impact on performance, like a Holiday where you won’t be on duty, or non-participation in the events of another faith…fine…but when it moves into the sphere of “I’d let the mother die rather than remove a clot of tissue that is compromising her health.” …then we move into the realm of a person being too compromised to make decisions regarding other people’s well being.

  • DEB ATE

    I agree 2 an extent Vox. But what if its a catholic hospital they don’t believe in abortion and its private and taking a job at a private hospital means you can follow your faith. You cant violate someones rights…<? right?

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Good point. A religious backed/funded hospital would be an ideal job for persons of faith…and everyone dealing with the hospital would walk thru the doors knowing what they were dealing with. It wouldn’t be a ‘surprise’ to discover in the middle of a health crisis that your doctors religion affects their choice of treatments. If people of faith find a job where their faith is acceptable as part of their work…thats all good. My objection, of course, still stands when dealing with public services, government services, private but secular institutions etc (and it should be noted that this is why I reject all plans where govt gives money to religious institutions…it creates a relationship where either money is being to spread that faith indirectly…or where a church may find itself with requirements that are onerous because of the money they receive. Either way, its a bad policy.)

  • Anonymous

    Yeah because it’s totally better and so much more civilized to let the woman die, thereby guaranteeing that the already unviable fetus also dies when she does. Why save one life when you can guarantee two deaths? But she’s just a woman. HER right to live doesn’t mean a damn thing when the only medical care available to her might have to ignore their stone age fairy tales for a few hours.

  • Anonymous

    The problem is that in many areas, ALL the hospitals are religious. My son was born in a Catholic hospital, and not by my choice. It was the only hospital for about three hours from my house. This is the same problem with allowing pharmacists to “refuse service based on their conscience” with regard to birth control or the morning after pill. It’s not like there’s always the choice to just go somewhere else. So what is really being legislated is that the woman’s health is meaningless because her ability to live might infringe on someone else’s religion, which is obviously SO much more important. I mean, she’s just a woman, after all.

  • Hadrian999

    women should just be baby factories liker god intended…..

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    An equally good point. When no other service is available, is it ethical to permit a religious belief that dominates a critical service to dictate matters of life and death over people who have no other options? I’d agree that its grossly unethical…and should probably be illegal…but the writing of such a statute would have to be incredibly careful.

    The surprising thing is that, despite my total contempt for almost all world religions (I have a faint tolerance and admiration toward Zen philosophy…once divorced from religious connotations) I actually support the right of people to have a religion and even to be idiots because of it…I just withdraw that support as soon as they decide their faith needs to impact on everyone outside their own home and church.

    I’m uncomfortable with anything that dictates the right self-determine the course of one’s own life…especially with regard to dictatorial external decisions about whether a religion meets the litmus test for acceptability. So much for potential for wrong on either side leaves me nervous about any tampering at all.

    I’d still maintain that a doctors ideal state of mind is the one my grandfather possessed. he was Catholic, devout, and so was his RN (his wife). Faith aside, they treated all people the same way…medicine first, faith kept out of it. I’ll never know if he came into crisis over the abortion issue (he was a country doctor…not an ObGyn…but he had to be a jack of all trades at times). I imagine that he would do whatever he could to save both lives…and then fall back if necessary on preserving the life of the mother. He was just that kind of guy. (His only self confessed crime was purchasing black market antibiotics in ww2…because drugs were hard to come by in war time…and people were dying of ordinary infections at home when they could have been treated easily. He learned that he could get antibiotics illegally…and as far as he was concerned it was the demand of his Hippocratic oath…if he knew of a way to save lives…he must choose that way, even if it conflicted with laws.)

  • Hadrian999

    all this trouble from people laboring under a myth.
    the myth that life is precious, it clearly is not, life is over abundant. in 1900 the population was 1.65 billion today it is over 6.8 billion, world food and water supplies are being stretched thin, fishing grounds are being wiped out.for a reasonable argument for life being a valuable commodity there would have to be 0% unemployment and a demand for more workers and now supplies hard hard to find. any other material that has an overabundant supply and a constant flow of fresh material would be considered junk.

    • Tuna Ghost

      …except that no one but a sociopath thinks of human life as being on par with pork futures or copper

      • Hadrian999

        remember your sentamentality when you’re enjoying a a soilent green combo meal

        • Tuna Ghost

          “Soylent Green: Now With 10% More Boys!” Oh, Simpsons…

  • Hadrian999

    all this trouble from people laboring under a myth.
    the myth that life is precious, it clearly is not, life is over abundant. in 1900 the population was 1.65 billion today it is over 6.8 billion, world food and water supplies are being stretched thin, fishing grounds are being wiped out.for a reasonable argument for life being a valuable commodity there would have to be 0% unemployment and a demand for more workers and now supplies hard hard to find. any other material that has an overabundant supply and a constant flow of fresh material would be considered junk.

  • Tuna Ghost

    …except that no one but a sociopath thinks of human life as being on par with pork futures or copper

  • Hadrian999

    remember your sentamentality when you’re enjoying a a soilent green combo meal

  • that1guy

    Abortion at what point in gestation is a choice between mother and child? I’ve posted this on every abortion debate article in the past 2 months, but the vast majority of abortions occur before a fetus has taste buds or is larger than the palm of your hand. Hardly a “child vs. mother” quandary in most cases. Pro-lifers either imagine or want people to imagine that a fetus, with the real and arguably sacred POTENTIAL to become a child, is the same thing as a born child, or that all or most abortions occur on a fetus that is pretty much viable and ready to be out in the world. That’s where my major objection to the whole movement comes in. If the Pro-life agenda were just about stopping the anomalous suffering of viable or close to viable fetuses, I’d have a lot more sympathy for it. But as it stands, considering the way the social reality of this medical procedure compares to the way pro-lifer’s characterize it, I don’t want to give them an inch for fear of losing a mile. I know that this is a slippery slope argument, which should a red flag for anyone with a skeptical outlook, but the evidence that the anti-abortion movement’s efforts will not stop at allowing individual practices to deny life-saving procedures, or at any one of the piecemeal reforms they run under the radar, is in the history of pro-life rhetoric. Give them this and you’re just one step closer anything more than 8 cells will being legally protected until birth, regardless of the health or general well-being of its mother.

  • Jordan

    I’m really not even OK with any _business_ taking a moral stance on anything, let alone who deserves to live or die. Not to mention how messed up it is that a hospital would even be affiliated with a religion, especially now. The Hippocratic oath is above and beyond personal religious preference, and it’s unfortunate that it’s interpretation would even be up for debate. So, here, I would have to agree, VoxMagi, that “If your faith compromises your ability to meet your expected responsibilities in a career…you need another career.”

  • Jordan

    Would also like to expound on this further towards the obvious, but this not only affects the doctor’s career choice, as discussed, but the career choice of politicians who have a religious motive in our legislature. The last time I checked, we aren’t living under Sharia law or our interpretation(s) of the Bible… or are we?

  • Anonymous

    that depends on which politician you talk to. A great many of them would like to see exactly that.

  • Anonymous

    Except that’s not what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about is removing a bit of tissue that is either a) already dead and can cause massive infection if not removed before it starts decomposing, b) not going to be capable of living on its own or c) going to die anyway when the woman carrying it dies from being denied a procedure that could save her life. Denying an abortion to a woman who needs it to save her life isn’t somehow going to miraculously save that fetus. In that situation, it’s going to die anyway one way or the other and it’s a matter of not letting it take the woman with it.

  • David Frost

    …what about pro-life democrats? I’d rather pay for a public option like I would have loved too but not have any of my tax dollars funding abortions.

  • David Frost

    I think abortion is only acceptable if it preserves life but the “party of no” has to take things and push it over a ledge it never was supposed to be pushed over.

  • David Frost

    If ALL hospitals have theistic origins then you atheists don’t have a leg to stand on when you think we theists are responsible for every single bad thing that ever has, is or will happen and not a drop of good in all of it.

  • Tuna Ghost

    “Soylent Green: Now With 10% More Boys!” Oh, Simpsons…

  • iii

    I don’t believe in God, trying to put me into the religious categore won’t help your point.

  • iii

    First of all, even as a Pro-life person I support the right to an abortion in the case when a mother’s life is at stake.

    To answer your question that you claim all pro-lifers skirt: No one. No one has a set scale in time that answers when “human” life begins or ends. I’ve heard 24 weeks, however from what it seems human life gets more viable outside the mothers womb due to advances in technology. If you agree with me this far, during most normal pregnancies (when the mother’s life isn’t in danger) and a decision has been made to abort there are two possibilites

    1. That the abortion is eliminating nothing more than a cyst.

    2. The abortion is killing a human being (not the potential for a human being)

    Which is the most prudent choice? ( in a situation when the mother’s life isn’t threatened)

    My answer is that (until you can scientifically derive metrics of when human life begins) I will continue take the side of prudence and safety for all humans who cannot defend themselves. I am an agnostic, my thoughts on this matter are objective. Again I think the abortion debate has only created this weird paradox where human mothers are being taught to see their offspring as a threat or property. Maybe all mother’s under 23 should be given free college tutition and day care; if that will bring about less abortions, I am for it.

  • iii

    First of all, even as a Pro-life person I support the right to an abortion in the case when a mother’s life is at stake.

    To answer your question that you claim all pro-lifers skirt: No one. No one has a set scale in time that answers when “human” life begins or ends. I’ve heard 24 weeks, however from what it seems human life gets more viable outside the mothers womb due to advances in technology. If you agree with me this far, during most normal pregnancies (when the mother’s life isn’t in danger) and a decision has been made to abort there are two possibilites

    1. That the abortion is eliminating nothing more than a cyst.

    2. The abortion is killing a human being (not the potential for a human being)

    Which is the most prudent choice? ( in a situation when the mother’s life isn’t threatened)

    My answer is that (until you can scientifically derive metrics of when human life begins) I will continue take the side of prudence and safety for all humans who cannot defend themselves. I am an agnostic, my thoughts on this matter are objective. Again I think the abortion debate has only created this weird paradox where human mothers are being taught to see their offspring as a threat or property. Maybe all mother’s under 23 should be given free college tutition and day care; if that will bring about less abortions, I am for it.

  • Nomos

    If you’re so concerned about how “human mothers” are being taught to view their spawn, then maybe we should all just let THEM decide for themselves how to feel and what to do. I know that sounds like a crazy motherfucking idea, but it just might be the least retarded option.