Perhaps the bill should require a 72 hr jail sentence for the father of the
baby, while the woman is " thinking" about it.Already, in Utah a
woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed
to discourage her from having an abortion and then wait 24 hours before the
procedure is provided. Counseling must be provided in person and must take place
before the waiting period begins, thereby necessitating two separate trips to
the facility. The abortion rate in Utah is 6.7 per 1000 women, 1/3 the rate of
the U.S. rate.Now Utah is going to teach abstinence only in schools.
Abstinence should be taught as part of sex education, but in older students, it
should include contraceptives, how to prevent STDs and pregnancy. This whole war against women's rights over their own health is going to
backfire against the Republicans.
Its a good start, now if we can just extend the waiting period out to 9
months.Conservatives you have been duped by one of the people you
idolize. Ronald Reagan had the often spoke about the evils of abortion. What did
he do about it? Nothing it wasn't a priority for him. Lowering taxes on the
wealthy was. When he had the chance to do something about it he put Sandra
O'Connor on the supreme court. Had her vote on a case having to do with abortion
gone the other way, the supreme court at the time would have nullified its Roe v
Wade decison.After he got out of office, after votes no longer
mattered to her, Nancy Reagan came out ad admitted that she was for a woman's
'right' to have an abortion.
This is ridiculous. Why can't you separate religion from your state? If you're
state's 90% on religion .. let that 90% follow their beliefs. Let the 10% of
the other religion follow theirs. Why in the world does the government have to
tell you what to do?
I thought republicans wanted the government out of our lives. Hypocrites.
Abstinance only education about sex?? Worked for Bristol Palin didnt it. This
states legislature has NO clue.
"Opponents argued that the bill was bad public policy because its true
intent is to punish women who make the decision to have an abortion."In all fairness, shouldn't murder be punished? Sorry if my religious
beliefs about the immorality of murder get in the way, but life is something we
Truthseeker,"This whole war against women's rights"For some people, it's a war to protect an infant's rights.Restrictions on abortion can in no way be construed to infringe a woman's
freedom. People should be free to make their own choices. When a woman chooses
to get pregnant, a choice is made. Certain activities have natural consequences.
We all know this as it clearly isn't rocket science. When you force an escape
from those consequences, you have not preserved free choice but have created a
third moral function altogether- this is not dissimilar to relativism, in which
all actions are moral according to one's desires. The problem is that if the
morality of an action is determined according to one's desire to commit such an
act, then no law or justice can exist. This is philosophy 101 and is one of the
most basic principles that is self evident. This is why philosophers almost
universally reject relativism, why religions do, why governments must, and so
on. If a woman can get pregnant and escape the consequence, why I can't I do it
for all of my actions. If I can't also, then justice is robbed from me.
Furthermore, how can you be so fast to consign men to the responsibility of
'getting a woman' pregnant, but reject any responsibility on the woman's
part.The truth is something we all know and cannot escape. Some
people try to find happiness by escaping responsibility for their actions. Good
people try to own the responsibility of their actions and deal justly in all
their dealings. I have never sought to "take away" anything from
women. And as far as "backfiring", it is only obvious that the only
thing that can backfire is trying to escape consequence. Whereas justice is an
eternal principle, as the Book of Alma in the Book of Mormon so well illustrates
for us. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.
I accept your apology, Riverton Cougar.
I thought Republicans were opposed to government inserting itself into medical
decisions. Weren't they the ones screaming Obama wanted to put government
between you and your doctor? Republicans are truly the party of big, intrusive
government. They want in your wombs, in your bedrooms, and in your
cupboards to control your alcohol and other legal products.
It is Vital to pass a bill delaying Abortion, as delay is the first step to
stopping or banning Abortion. A Ban can be done in many ways, such as noth
accepting Health Care Plans that cover abortion. Not going to health facilities
that perform Abortions, and of Course not going to Drs. or Other medical
professionals who perform or take part in Abortions.Now with
Christmas and news Years over and March and April approaching the errors of the
end of last year might be beginning to show, and for some the easy way out or so
it would appear would be an Abortion. However there is enough problems from
committing the error, mostly if he told what you two did or a person did the
confess thing. Please do not ad to the problem, an Abortion which is pretty much
1st degree murder. Adoption would be the option and protection of the Childs
right to live, and the Male Childs Priesthood Rights. Anything the
State can do to delay or prevent Abortion is a good thing.Are you
aware that in a Number of States that Abortion Banning Laws are written and
ready to go, with the verbal committment to call a special session for such a
purpose the moment Roe v Wade is Overturned or a New president Declares that
Abortion or at least the Federal Funding there of is Flat Over In America.
Answer: Several let Utah be one of those States.
Truthseeker: I agree with you, except it is not just the Repubs that are against
killing unborn childern. It is not a Repub or Dem thing it is a Human thing. Life begins at the moment of conception, Choice ends at the moment life
begins. I think the issues of Birth Control ( I am in favor of
almost anything that will prevent a conception) However the conception having
taken place I am 100% against the murder of an unborn child.Accidents do happen but you should never tell your child that they are/where
an accident, bad on the self image. Also you should never Kill your child.
issred"They want in your wombs, in your bedrooms, and in your
cupboards to control your alcohol and other legal products."Surely you understand that those who would disagree with such a bold claim
would expect reasonable grounds to support it. Yet no such support was provided.
My argument proves that there are reasons to support abortion restrictions that
are not motivated by controlling others actions. And as regards to alcohol, I
don't promote removing alcohol but preventing the abuse of alcohol. Other states
are far more restrictive, yet our state is the most effective in DUI-related
death prevention (with or without the LDS population taken into account). By all
means, I have provided reason to support my only concern being freedom and I
have provided reason to support my claims as being functional. Your claim has
only been that an entire people, a membership of a political party- one that
shares some of my beliefs- that those persons are motivated by wrongdoing and
infringing freedom.By all means, a more appropriate and a more
accurate statement, even one supported by some small basis of reason could have
been made. I'm not asking for agreement, but asking for such a statement equates
to asking for at least the bare minimum of respect in public discourse. If you
can't respect other people's opinions as being based in reason instead of the
sole desire to destroy freedom, then again such comments are not conducive to
peaceable public discourse.
2nd tryThe rate of abortion doesn't correspond with whether it is legal or
not. Some of the lowest rates are in Western Europe where abortioin is legal,
while So. America where abortion is illegal has a high rate of abortion. Liberals and conservatives can agree that we want to reduce the
incidence of abortion and unplanned pregnancy. However, conservatives tipped
their hand that they really are less concerned about the abortion rate than they
are about imposing their idealogical standards. While teaching abstinence has
been shown to delay sex in early puberty, it does not work for older teens and
young adults. Abstinence should be a part of any sex ed program, but it
shouldn't be the only thing taught. The use of contraceptives, including
emergency contraceptives can substanially decrease the rate of unplanned
pregnancy. When men devise some serious consequences for the
choices they make to have sex, then perhaps, women will listen to what they have
to say on the topic of abortion. Men have NO IDEA the emotional and physical
costs of being pregnant, giving birth, or giving up a baby for adoption.
Cougar:: contraception is not murder. The morning after pill is not murder. It
mearly prevents the egg from attaching to the uterus. We all have our religious
beliefs, but superstition and paronoia, should not be included. Educate yourself
and join the 21st century. You call yourself cougar. That could be misconstrude
as a sexual term. Is that what you intended? Or am i just paranoid. Women for
the last 40 years have been in contoll of their own bodies, and that is as it
should be. Now the GOP wants to take us back 50 years. They are always
clamouring that the government should stay out of our lives. Well then why dont
Truthseeker,"imposing their idealogical standards"First, how in this democracy could I possibly impose my standards on
someone else? Maybe liberals have forgotten or intentionally neglected the
meaning of democracy, but for the rest of us it means equal control/ownership of
our government. We govern ourselves. Just because liberals don't like the
outcome of our voice, doesn't mean it's imposing. When liberals convinced the
court to cancel our votes (our rights) based on a "right to privacy"
that isn't even in our constitution, then maybe you should reconsider who you
start accusing of imposing ideological standards on others. Read Rehnquist's
dissent on Roe V. Wade and then show me where in the constitution such rights
are protected."When men devise some serious consequences for
the choices they make to have sex, then perhaps, women will listen to what they
have to say on the topic of abortion."So I suppose child
support isn't considered a consequence to you? If not, then what is? Yes, SOME
men do bad things... but such acts have absolutely nothing to do with whether
restrictions on abortion should be in place. The logic of your argument is:
'because he escaped consequence, I should be able to". This a reverse use
of the deductive argument I made, and a logical fallacy. If one person is exempt
from justice, then you are robbing others of justice who you hold accountable.
This means that 'because men escape consequence, you have robbed women by
placing the full responsibility on them'. It doesn't mean that 'they should
escape it to'. Otherwise, ALL law must cease, all morality must cease, and I am
entitled to commit any crime I desire.Truthseeker, I'm not just a
fanatical spouting "read the Book of Mormon" without reason. If you
really seek truth, I'll assume you have read the Book of Mormon. Well,
throughout the "Reign of Judges" chapters these principles of justice
and freedom vs moral relativism are outlined perfectly. Not only are they
explained, but they are proven over and over and the infallibility of the logic
of these principles is proven. Does that make me a ideological crazy person? No.
That simply means I'm making a pretty bold claim. But I'm also pointing to
answers for such claims. I also democratically voice those principles into a
government you have equal power over. That is freedom. That is equality. That is
You cite the Book of Mormon, but the LDS church doesn't take a position on Roe v
Wade. It also permits abortion in cases of rape, incest, severe deformity of
the fetus/infant or life/death situations of the mother. So apparently the
"infant" interests don't always supercede those of the mother.If you believe in God, no one is going to escape judgement. If a woman
has an abortion, God will judge her, knowing the circumstances, level of
knowledge etc. During Jesus' ministry, he refrained from judging, while urging
us to not sin. How are you going to keep women from having abortions? Will you
incarcerate them, put them on trial? Will you incarcerate Drs.or healthcare
workers? How does making contraception easily available and free limit your
freedom?Since the Constitution was ratified, the founding fathers
and great legal minds have differed on it's limits, interpretation etc. So
saying the originalists/strict constitutionalists views are the correct
interpretation is just your opinion.
As far as I know, there is no official position on Roe v Wade. However, it also
doesn't "permit" abortion in any situation automatically. Rape,
Incest, Severe Deformity, and Life risk situations are the only times where a
member may approach the issue in good standing with the church. Members still
must pray and seek counsel from their bishop. However, it isn't a matter of
'infant interests vs mothers interests'. This entire matter isn't about anyone's
"interests" or desires whatsoever. This is about freedom, the freedom
to live and the freedom to choose. If you read the talk "Weightier
Matters" by Dallin H. Oaks, you will find adequate reason which addresses
my exact argument in relation to the church's official position."If you believe in God, no one is going to escape judgement."A very common point used in saying "we should let it happen".
I do believe justice will ultimately not be robbed, but I believe this life is
our probationary period 'away from God' to learn to make the right choices now.
My belief in God doesn't excuse making laws that I believe and can rationally
explain to be unjust.I also wouldn't confuse Jesus's refrain from
judging with not passing judgement. Doctrinally, Jesus Christ is the ultimate
judge and will pass judgement. In Alma 42:22-30, we clearly see that judgement
is passed on everyone and the balance between that judgement and Christ's
forgiving statements. This address both.Where you asked a few
questions "how will..." -I think you misunderstood me a little. I'm
not trying to say Women shouldn't have choice, but that 'abortion on demand is
wrong, and laws attempting to prevent that act are just'. Should the state
interfere where it cannot always know? No. I agree with that. But are longer
waiting periods, required counseling with a religious or state counselor, or
something... would these things do any harm? No, they only serve to prevent
wrong acts and allow choice. This is a great functioning design to me. I would
only ever prosecute doctors, etc. if they committed a crime. And I don't care if
they hand out contraception to 10 year olds (accept for any health concerns). If
they made their choice to do it, I'd rather they have the pill as another
choice. However, I don't believe in promoting this pill as a "you can do
whatever you want" option either. There is an obvious balance there that
needs more attention than it currently gets.How are you going to
keep women from having abortions? Will you incarcerate them, put them on trial?
Will you incarcerate Drs.or healthcare workers? How does making contraception
easily available and free limit your freedom?I'm not advocated a
non-interpretive approach to the constitution. But "implied rights"
that aren't clearly outlined, cannot justly be used to rule an opinion which
such serious consequences. If it involves the possibility of destroying a human
life, then it absolutely must be clearly defined in the document we've ordained
and agree to live by together.
"It also permits abortion in cases of rape, incest, severe deformity of the
fetus/infant or life/death situations of the mother. So apparently the
"infant" interests don't always supercede those of the
mother."Truthseeker,Do you realize that those
situations account for about 1% of abortions? It's not a very valid argument.
Read Elder Nelson's talk on the subject in the Ensign in 2009 (earlier in the
year, but a search on the website will lead you right to it; "Sanctity of
Life" is what I think it's called), then you will know what the church's
stance on abortion is. Go seek some truth in that article."Cougar:: contraception is not murder."homebrew,Please show me where I said contraception is murder. I thought it was
clear I was talking about abortion, which is after conception (hence the
reference to the decision to have an abortion).
Re: homebrew 11:00 a.m. Feb. 25, 2012"Worked for Bristol Palin didnt
it."Bristol Palin chose life for her child. My hat is off to
any woman who chooses to put the interests of her unborn child ahead of her own.
That's what mothers do.