Abortion petition circulating through...

Abortion petition circulating through Albuqueruqe

There are 300 comments on the KOAT-TV story from Jul 20, 2013, titled Abortion petition circulating through Albuqueruqe. In it, KOAT-TV reports that:

A BILL TO PUT TOUGH RETRICTIONS ON LATE TERM ABORTIONS EARLIER THIS WEEK. NOW A PETITION MAKING ITS WAY THROUGH ALBUQUERQUE COULD LEAD TO A BAN HERE.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KOAT-TV.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#182 Aug 7, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
<quoted text>
"Our laws must be based upon facts, scientific and legal. It's that simple."
Let's see. You say you don't have to have objections based on science and then you do...nice logic. Read your own posts for content and form. Logic be darned.
And you obviously didn't read my posts (#74 & 99) because of your assumptions. I support abortion. But then that would have gotten in the way of your word salad. Must be a lawyer. Or a teacher. Just kidding.
YOU learn to read.

I said you can BELIEVE anything you want, BASED on anything you want. You DON'T get to pass laws that govern ME based solely upon YOUR unproven religious beliefs.

There, did I dumb it down enough for you?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#183 Aug 7, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, although it's not analogous to abortion.
Yes, although it's not analogous to abortion.
Yes. I'm assuming here that there's no end of life directive left by the patient.
Against it as I don't believe people should have the power of life and death over others.
Of COURSE they are analogous to abortion when you're objection is to the "taking of human life".

Okay, now why?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184 Aug 7, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you read your posts? And how will you stop people going to the ballot box and electing people they choose based on religious beliefs. A religious litmus test again? Can't vote or make laws based on your beliefs? That is why we have the Constitution and Supremes. You sound like you are talking about another country.
I said nothing about elections, you Moron.

Learn to read.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#185 Aug 7, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I said that you cannot legislate specific religious tenets into civil law. That violates the establishment clause.
I think I've said that thrice now.
People who's viewpoints may have been informed by religion can and do advocate and propose legislation and get legislative proposals passed into law. They do it all the time. That isn't the same as codifying specific religious tenets into civil law.
It's just the same precept as people who go in front of congress and tell anecdotal accounts of their experiences in hopes of modifying policy.
They cannot do so based solely upon their religious beliefs. Which is WHY the junk science is thrown into these laws, to get them passed.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#186 Aug 7, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
And think of all the laws passed, like gun control, not based on scientific studies or facts. Was hardly talking of your position on it. Passed not based on religious beliefs. Passed on emotional and political beliefs. No evidence base to it.
<Sigh> I'm sorry, I assumed you'd be intelligent enough to understand that the "and" didn't mean both were required when I said scientific and legal. I shouldn't have assumed.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#187 Aug 7, 2013
davy wrote:
So are you against the death penalty?
<quoted text>
I said "yes".
Dan

Omaha, NE

#188 Aug 7, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
If it is it's own separate being than by all means separate it entirely and let it support itself anytime in the first trimester. Why would it need the woman/girls body for any reason Dan?
Here's why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_developmen... (biology)

It's Wikipedia, I know, but I don't think it's too elementary for you, based upon your post here.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#189 Aug 7, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Of COURSE they are analogous to abortion when you're objection is to the "taking of human life".
Okay, now why?
When did I say "taking of human life"?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#190 Aug 7, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
<Sigh> I'm sorry, I assumed you'd be intelligent enough to understand that the "and" didn't mean both were required when I said scientific and legal. I shouldn't have assumed.
......"or".

"or" would have sufficed.

As in, "scientific or legal", "scientific and/or legal".
Dan

Omaha, NE

#191 Aug 7, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Of COURSE they are analogous to abortion when you're objection is to the "taking of human life".
Okay, now why?
......and I said I opposed war and capital punishment, even though I believe them not analogous to abortion.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#192 Aug 7, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
They cannot do so based solely upon their religious beliefs. Which is WHY the junk science is thrown into these laws, to get them passed.
What "junk science"?

Please cite examples in laws passed on this subject.

Thanks

“Matthew 16:13 - 17”

Since: Mar 13

Vladville

#193 Aug 7, 2013
http://godfatherpolitics.com/10132/planned-pa...

During a committee hearing a Planned Parenthood official came out of the closet and supported killing a baby born alive after a botched attempt by the “doctor” to kill him.

“Alisa Laport Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.”

There it is: The long-tail implications of abortion. What difference does a few seconds outside his mother’s body make? A few seconds before and the baby could be killed legally. Once born, however, the baby is protected by the law, at least that’s what Florida legislators hoped to pass into law.

Rep. Jim Boyd was horrified at Snow’s nonchalant admission.

“So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief. If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

Here was Snow’s response:

"We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Matthew 16:13 - 17”

Since: Mar 13

Vladville

#194 Aug 7, 2013
http://www.americanclarion.com/20854/2013/05/...

The Left usually worships science…or what it likes to call “science.”

But that’s what it really comes down to, doesn’t it? What the Left worships as “science” isn’t really science at all, but is rather convenient conjecture, assumption and emotionalism pimped out as “science.”

http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2013...

Is that unreasonable? Progressives will say yes, accusing conservatives of trying to control a woman’s body. But this is demagoguery. Pregnancy involves three humans: A woman, a man and a fetus. Any discussion that doesn’t take reality into account should be dismissed.

Since the left is fond of comparing the United States to Europe – that paradise of progressive values – it is worth examining European abortion laws: They are far, far more conservative than American laws.(Yes, you read that correctly.)

Writing in The Atlantic, Garance Franke-Ruta explains:

France permits abortions up until the 14th week of pregnancy... After that, abortions are only available in exigent circumstances, such as severe fetal deformities, or to save the health or life of the mother. France also has a mandatory one-week waiting period for all abortions (they prefer to describe it as a "cooling-off" period), unless by so waiting the woman would pass the 14-week cut-off, which coincides with the end of the first trimester.

That’s France, the country Americans perceive to be the most sexually liberated of all. She goes on:“Other nations that restrict abortions largely to the first trimester include: Germany (14 weeks), Italy (90 days from the last menstrual period), Spain (14 weeks), and Portugal (10 weeks).”

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Matthew 16:13 - 17”

Since: Mar 13

Vladville

#195 Aug 7, 2013
Truth of life does not change, yes?

Judged:

10

10

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Yes

United States

#196 Aug 7, 2013
Huszar wrote:
Truth of life does not change, yes?
Spam BS of Joseph does not change, yes.

“Matthew 16:13 - 17”

Since: Mar 13

Vladville

#197 Aug 7, 2013
Yes wrote:
<quoted text>
Spam BS of Joseph does not change, yes.
Who is Joseph?

Huszar is my nev.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Baby puncher

United States

#198 Aug 7, 2013
Huszar wrote:
http://godfatherpolitics.com/1 0132/planned-parenthood-lets-t he-bloody-truth-out-of-the-bag /
During a committee hearing a Planned Parenthood official came out of the closet and supported killing a baby born alive after a botched attempt by the “doctor” to kill him.
“Alisa Laport Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.”
There it is: The long-tail implications of abortion. What difference does a few seconds outside his mother’s body make? A few seconds before and the baby could be killed legally. Once born, however, the baby is protected by the law, at least that’s what Florida legislators hoped to pass into law.
Rep. Jim Boyd was horrified at Snow’s nonchalant admission.
“So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief. If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”
Here was Snow’s response:
"We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”
Decision for abortion be make by woman and her doctor?

The horror, the horror.

“Matthew 16:13 - 17”

Since: Mar 13

Vladville

#199 Aug 7, 2013
Baby puncher wrote:
<quoted text>
Decision for abortion be make by woman and her doctor?
The horror, the horror.
After baby born. Horror, yes?

Judged:

11

11

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#200 Aug 7, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_developmen... (biology)
It's Wikipedia, I know, but I don't think it's too elementary for you, based upon your post here.
Dancing, Dancing Dan.

If the zygote/embryo/fetus is separate from the woman/girl it should not need her body, right Dancing Dan? But you provide a link that claims it does: "A week after fertilization the embryo still has not grown in size, but hatches from its protein shell and adheres to the lining of the mother's uterus."" So this "separate" being needs the mothers body...right Dancing Dan?

NOW, does the womans body need the zygote/embryo/fetus for ANYTHING? And as Bitner pointed out can cause potential harm to the woman/girl who does NOT need it for any beneficial purpose unless willingly.

So, again according to your claim the zygote/embryo/fetus is separate from the women/girl, but yet needs the women/girls body for its survival but the woman/girl does NOT need it for ANYTHING beneficial and possibly harmful to her, why should religion or the government demand that she proceed against her will?

To complicated for your male mind?

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#201 Aug 7, 2013
Huszar wrote:
http://godfatherpolitics.com/1 0132/planned-parenthood-lets-t he-bloody-truth-out-of-the-bag /
During a committee hearing a Planned Parenthood official came out of the closet and supported killing a baby born alive after a botched attempt by the “doctor” to kill him.
“Alisa Laport Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.”
There it is: The long-tail implications of abortion. What difference does a few seconds outside his mother’s body make? A few seconds before and the baby could be killed legally. Once born, however, the baby is protected by the law, at least that’s what Florida legislators hoped to pass into law.
Rep. Jim Boyd was horrified at Snow’s nonchalant admission.
“So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief. If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”
Here was Snow’s response:
"We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”
that has been proven to be a right wing lie.....read the trascript:

But when Rep. Jim Boyd asked Alisa LaPolt Snow, a lobbyist for the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, what Planned Parenthood would "want to have happen to [a] child that is struggling for life" after being born alive in a "botched abortion" situation, she was caught in a catch-22 where she was basically forced to choose between effectively "admitting" that abortion is dangerous for babies or driving home the point that it should always be up to a woman to choose what's best for her. She went with the latter:

"So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I'm almost in disbelief," said Rep. Jim Boyd. "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?"

"We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician," said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.

Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, "What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?"

"I do not have that information," Snow replied. "I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information."

Conservative outlets subsequently shit all over themselves in excitement scrambling to write op-eds about how Planned Parenthood wants to kill babies for sport. Choice example from The Christian Post: "If a child can be killed in the womb, there are no convincing arguments, either logical or a moral, as to why a child cannot be killed on the table, abandoned in the trash, burned alive in an incinerator or poisoned in the nursery." Logic!

Every right wing rag lied about this encounter. Liars for jesus (typical) all of them and now you too!! Congratulations!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rick Perry Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Clinton campaign hits Trump for seeing Brexit a... 36 min Le Jimbo 53
News Will smart-looking glasses do the trick for Ric... (Jun '15) 15 hr VorenusI 3
News Milestones in legal fight over Texas abortion law Mon Cat74 2
News Tea party abandons presidential race to focus o... (Oct '11) Jun 15 Swedenforever 184
News Texas Republicans not quite ready to secede May '16 Three Days Paleo 9
News Welcome The Real Housewives of Dallas May '16 Three Days 1
News After years of Cruz-mania, Texas GOP convention... May '16 tomin cali 2
More from around the web