Va. Lawmaker: Disabled Kids are God's Punishment for Abortion

Status
Not open for further replies.
What a load of crap! I have never had an abortion and my only child is autistic. Hope he gets voted out quickly. I don't believe in abortion but I'm not going to punish someone because they choose to undergo it. Make abortion illeagal isn't going to stop it from happening it will just force the practice underground and cause even more harm. No need to go back to the days of coathangers in the back room.
 
TXgolfer said:
Little known tidbit.....Men contribute to almost 100% of all pregnancies
Click to expand...
A rather smug retort. How about this; women are the ones that get pregnant 100% of the time, no question. The problem lies with some of the methods in which this impregnation occurs. It also lies with men that bail out of relationships when the girl gets pregnant. And there is the issue of women with health issues arising from pregnancy.
There are many reasons women seek this procedure. Never assume that, because someone made a deposit in a woman's vagina, that they can dictate her fate. I certainly won't. I let them choose for themselves. It is their issue, not mine.
 
TXgolfer said:
Little known tidbit.....Men contribute to almost 100% of all pregnancies
Click to expand...

100% of the men do not going through the hormone changes, the risks, labor, delivery, and recovery. It is not easy being pregnant sometimes and men can abandon the woman and the pregnancy anytime they want. The woman has a choice to abandon the pregnancy or not. It is a choice...you dont have to like it but it is really each woman's own personal choice.
 
100% of the men do not going through the hormone changes, the risks, labor, delivery, and recovery.
Click to expand...

True, but a man who is involved with a woman who is is affected by these changes. Hormone changes, risks, labor, and the pregnancy process in general do have an effect on any relationships the woman is in, including any relationship she might be in with a man.

My wife and I love each other and I would be very disappointed if she got pregnant and didn't at least talk to me about her plans to get an abortion. Likewise if I ever got pregnant (which would pretty much only be through rape), I would include her in my decision process.

Men should have a part in the decision of the abortion if they are actually involved with the woman, invested in her needs, and a part of her life. If the man just disappears after she gets pregnant, then he shouldn't have a say. And the men in government should definitely not have a say in what every woman in the country can or can't do with her fetus.
 
I am hardly a hardcore anti-abortion guy. My comment was in regard to a ridiculous assertion that men have no say in the legality of abortion.......Of course this thread isn't really about abortion, but instead the comments by this delegate. And I stated earlier in this thread he should be thrown out for those comments assuming they are true.

shel90 said:
100% of the men do not going through the hormone changes, the risks, labor, delivery, and recovery.

That is one of the potential consequences of sex. Sex is fun just like drinking socially or gambling a little or even driving a car. But there are potential hazards to each activity.

It is not easy being pregnant sometimes and men can abandon the woman and the pregnancy anytime they want.

Not true.....at least not legally. That is one of the major inequities of our system. Say two strangers get drunk and have a one night stand that results in pregnancy. By law a woman has the right to choose to end the consequence of her actions for this one time mistake. But the man doesn't have that same choice if the woman keeps the baby. The man made the same one night mistake but is looking at losing 25% of his income for the next 18-22 years. If a man believes this is too much for a one night stand and doesn't pay, he goes to jail. A man is held accountable for his mistake.

The woman has a choice to abandon the pregnancy or not. It is a choice...you dont have to like it but it is really each woman's own personal choice.
Click to expand...

Well that is what the law says now. The blog at the start of this thread was commenting on a press conference by people who seek to change the law. They do have the right to try to change the law.....that's how our system works. I doubt they will be able to change it and personally I see many other issues as more important

It sounds like this man made a pretty irresponsible quote. I sure would like to read the entire speech in context though.
 
CJB said:
Men should have a part in the decision of the abortion if they are actually involved with the woman, invested in her needs, and a part of her life. If the man just disappears after she gets pregnant, then he shouldn't have a say. And the men in government should definitely not have a say in what every woman in the country can or can't do with her fetus.
Click to expand...
:gpost:
This sums up my opinion very well. I have never walked in the shoes of a woman impregnated by a rapist, an insestuous relative, or had to worry about surviving personal health issues increased by being pregnant.
 
CJB said:
True, but a man who is involved with a woman who is is affected by these changes. Hormone changes, risks, labor, and the pregnancy process in general do have an effect on any relationships the woman is in, including any relationship she might be in with a man.

My wife and I love each other and I would be very disappointed if she got pregnant and didn't at least talk to me about her plans to get an abortion. Likewise if I ever got pregnant (which would pretty much only be through rape), I would include her in my decision process.

Men should have a part in the decision of the abortion if they are actually involved with the woman, invested in her needs, and a part of her life. If the man just disappears after she gets pregnant, then he shouldn't have a say. And the men in government should definitely not have a say in what every woman in the country can or can't do with her fetus.
Click to expand...

The men in government are representatives of the people. Many people believe a woman has a right to abortion......then again many people believe those aborted fetuses have rights.......The men in government represent people on both sides. The function of our government is to establish the acceptable norms (laws) for our country. The function of the courts is to settle disputes regarding these norms. Since there is strong disagreement over this issue, the government and courts not only have a right to make a decision.....they have a responsibility to do so. So far they have said a woman has a right to choose.

There is nothing wrong with lawmakers being pro choice or pro life either....Again they represent the people (or should) and our laws are ever changing. What is objectionable is that a lawmaker would use sensationalist speech blaming abortion for punishment from God.

And again we can't be certain based on the quote in this blog that this statement was in context. If it was....he should be gone.
 
TXgolfer said:
The men in government are representatives of the people. Many people believe a woman has a right to abortion......then again many people believe those aborted fetuses have rights.......The men in government represent people on both sides. The function of our government is to establish the acceptable norms (laws) for our country. The function of the courts is to settle disputes regarding these norms. Since there is strong disagreement over this issue, the government and courts not only have a right to make a decision.....they have a responsibility to do so. So far they have said a woman has a right to choose.

There is nothing wrong with lawmakers being pro choice or pro life either....Again they represent the people (or should) and our laws are ever changing. What is objectionable is that a lawmaker would use sensationalist speech blaming abortion for punishment from God.

And again we can't be certain based on the quote in this blog that this statement was in context. If it was....he should be gone.
Click to expand...

The men in government represent the people in theory. And more often than not, each politican only represents a certain sect of society (most typically in U.S. politics conservatives, or liberals, but seldom both.) But it is not uncommon at all for politicians to say they believe in one thing for the votes only to change their ground once they get into the position they ran for. It's also not uncommon for politicians to uphold their citizens to standards they would or could never meet themselves. And most importantly, it's not the place of our government politicians to make a choice that is as complex and personal as whether to abort a fetus.
 
Since when does a fetus have Constitutional rights?
 
CJB said:
The men in government represent the people in theory. And more often than not, each politican only represents a certain sect of society (most typically in U.S. politics conservatives, or liberals, but seldom both.) But it is not uncommon at all for politicians to say they believe in one thing for the votes only to change their ground once they get into the position they ran for. It's also not uncommon for politicians to uphold their citizens to standards they would or could never meet themselves. And most importantly, it's not the place of our government politicians to make a choice that is as complex and personal as whether to abort a fetus.[/QUOTE]

I agree with alot of what you said about politicians..That is the reason the electorate must stay informed and vote.

As for the bold....how do we decide then? Person A says they want an abortion.....Person B says that fetus has rights. Do we let government and the courts decide? Do we let these 2 fight it out in the street? Two sides disagree about the rights of a fetus.....it has to be settled somehow.

In Illinois they were letting fetuses who survived abortions (yes they sometimes survive) starve on a table. The babies (they were born now) were crying for food and Drs let them starve to honor the mothers wishes. The US finally banned that practice on a 99-0 senate vote. The point is where we draw the line has to be decided somehow.
Click to expand...
 
netrox said:
Since when does a fetus have Constitutional rights?
Click to expand...

Do they? Do they not? Who decides? Can a woman decide a fetus doesn't have constitutional rights? Only the courts get to decide what is constitutional.

And they did decide......are they allowed to reconsider? I am pretty sure the allows the to reconsider if a case is brought before them.
 
netrox said:
Since when does a fetus have Constitutional rights?
Click to expand...

be careful with that argument... because it's like since when illegals have a constitutional rights?



I think the argument you are looking for is, when a fetus is a person.
 
Illegal immigrants are a good example.....do they have con rights? Do they not? Who decides. Does each person get to decide for themselves whether or not to grant rights to illegals. Can one person decide to employ them while another decides to deny them treatment in an ER.

No. The courts decide.
 
TXgolfer said:
CJB said:
As for the bold....how do we decide then? Person A says they want an abortion.....Person B says that fetus has rights. Do we let government and the courts decide? Do we let these 2 fight it out in the street? Two sides disagree about the rights of a fetus.....it has to be settled somehow.

In Illinois they were letting fetuses who survived abortions (yes they sometimes survive) starve on a table. The babies (they were born now) were crying for food and Drs let them starve to honor the mothers wishes. The US finally banned that practice on a 99-0 senate vote. The point is where we draw the line has to be decided somehow.
Click to expand...

I understand about the line being drawn somewhere, but that's why the law should only decide when (during gestation) and how to go about an abortion. Namely, if Person B is against abortion, even in extreme circumstances, she doesn't have to have an abortion. But that doesn't give her the right to step over the rights of Person A who given her circumstances feels she needs to have an abortion. Just like with same sex marriage--just cause someone hates gays or doesn't think they should be allowed to marry doesn't give them the right to step all over the rights of so many other Americans.

The government doesn't have to make the decision of whether a mother has an abortion or not. In fact that's exactly what I'm saying: don't try to make the decision. Leave the decision to the mother.
Click to expand...
 
CJB said:
TXgolfer said:
I understand about the line being drawn somewhere, but that's why the law should only decide when (during gestation) and how to go about an abortion. Namely, if Person B is against abortion, even in extreme circumstances, she doesn't have to have an abortion. But that doesn't give her the right to step over the rights of Person A who given her circumstances feels she needs to have an abortion. Just like with same sex marriage--just cause someone hates gays or doesn't think they should be allowed to marry doesn't give them the right to step all over the rights of so many other Americans.

The government doesn't have to make the decision of whether a mother has an abortion or not. In fact that's exactly what I'm saying: don't try to make the decision. Leave the decision to the mother.
Click to expand...

In the senario Person B wasn't against the mother......Person B was for the rights of the fetus. Since the Constitution isn't specific either way someone has to decide whether that fetus has rights. That's where the courts come in. Could very well be that the courts say Person B is wrong. They have in some cases already. Is person B entitled to express their opinion? That right, in fact, is specifically provided by the Constitution.

Is person B entitled to bring the matter to court? That also is specifically provided in the constitution. Will it make it to the Supreme Court. If it is relevant it will. The fact that this country is pretty divided between person A and person B makes it relevant. That's why it has been in court and will continue to be in court.
Click to expand...
 
Abortion debates like this bring out the anarchist in me.

Revert society back to a miniarchist state, or tribal state, let people figure out the abortion issue themselves. The government has no way of pleasing anyone in this matter. It seems like the ones who do want abortions legalized will find themselves in the company of like-minded people, and vice versa.
 
souggy said:
Abortion debates like this bring out the anarchist in me.

Revert society back to a miniarchist state, or tribal state, let people figure out the abortion issue themselves. The government has no way of pleasing anyone in this matter. It seems like the ones who do want abortions legalized will find themselves in the company of like-minded people, and vice versa.
Click to expand...


Sounds very much like a pro states rights argument .....

I have often said that if you let states decide then people migrate to states that fit them......especially on issues they considered important. Make sense for abortion, capital punishment,drugs and many other areas. It would also be one great sociological experiment to watch.
 
God should had stopped on the 5th day so we wouldn't have this debate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top