close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

House rejects gender-based abortion bill

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by W420Hunter, May 31, 2012.

  1. G-19

    G-19

    1,735
    0
    Jul 1, 2004
    What makes me sick is that this is even an issue. How could some one kill a baby for any reason, let alone just because of its gender. This country has lost all of its morals.

    It is no wonder this country is in the State it is.
     

  2. G22Dude

    G22Dude

    2,956
    107
    Jan 23, 2009
    I agree with everything you guys have said but the bill was flawed in the sense that they seem to be arguing that abortion is ok for ever other reason other than gender selection.

    I assume that the sponsor is protecting life in any way he can, but the whole sitution is a stinking mess, and speaks to the moral decline of this once great nation
     
  3. G-19

    G-19

    1,735
    0
    Jul 1, 2004
    Paul voted no because everyone should have freedom to kill babies.
     
  4. Lethaltxn

    Lethaltxn

    6,502
    715
    Mar 23, 2010
    Texas
    What else was attached to it?
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2012
  5. steve1988

    steve1988

    1,595
    26
    Feb 5, 2009
    Ft. Meade, MD
    If we accept (as our government has) that aborting a child for convenience sake is right, then I don't see a flaw in the logic of anyone who voted no on this bill.
     
  6. The flaw is, if you consider yourself pro-life, then you take a stand to chip away at our legalized holocaust whenever and wherever you can. Shame on every no voter, including our own Andre Carson, Muslim, IN.
     
  7. I have searched for a statement explaining this vote but cannot find one. If someone does, please post it as I would like to see it.
     
  8. steve1988

    steve1988

    1,595
    26
    Feb 5, 2009
    Ft. Meade, MD
    You misunderstand. What I meant was, for someone who is pro-choice, even if the abortion is purely for convenience sake, I don't see a flaw in their logic.

    The only logical reason that I can see someone who is pro-life voting no would be that the law would be vague and nearly impossible to enforce.
     
  9. Gundude

    Gundude

    7,752
    651
    Mar 7, 2003
    This bill reminds me of an episode of Seinfeld I saw a long time ago, where Jerry tries to return a sport jacket he just bought. It went something like this:

    Jerry: I'd like to return this jacket.

    Clerk: For what reason?

    Jerry: Spite. I don't care for the salesman who sold it to me.

    Clerk: You can't return it for that reason.

    Jerry: What? What difference does it make? Ok, then, I'm returning it because I don't like it.

    Clerk: Too late, you already said spite.
     
  10. Syclone538

    Syclone538

    2,086
    1
    Jan 8, 2006
    I read the article, and don't know much at all about the bill.

    In general, libertarians want fewer laws, not more.

    Given that abortion is currently legal, this is an attempt at creating thought crime.
     
  11. The Machinist

    The Machinist No Compromise

    6,447
    526
    Sep 20, 2009
    The Left Coast
    Ron Paul has said that he is pro-life, and views abortion as an act of violence akin to murder. With that said, he still believes it's up to the states to make laws regarding that. I don't agree, but that's what the man said.

    No, I don't have a link. It's simply something he said during one of the primary debates.
     
  12. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    53,974
    6,189
    Apr 23, 2008
    Houston
    You said it in the same way Paul said it.

    See how that works?
     
  13. Protection of Life from womb to grave is one of the few legitimate roles of government (at all levels IMO). Sometimes, politics becomes the art of what's practical rather than theory of how it should be. I noted even Joe Donnelly D-IN, who is running against Richard Mourdock (the guy who beat Lugar), voted yes. Good move on his part.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2012
  14. Gundude

    Gundude

    7,752
    651
    Mar 7, 2003
    Good. Let's ban hydrogenated oils, sodas, cigarettes, motorcycles, guns, cars, swimming pools, tall buildings, skiis, etc.
     
  15. aspartz

    aspartz

    3,281
    133
    Oct 19, 2000
    Sandstone, MN 55072
    OK, lets play that out:

    If life is defined as beginning at conception, we will have to monitor pregnant women far more closely. If she does not eat correctly, she will have to be force fed, because after all, it's for the child.
    ...if she drinks or smokes she will have to be incarcerated for child abuse.
    ...if has a miscarriage or the baby is stillborn, we will have to charge her with manslaughter until she proves that it was not her fault that the darling child died.
    ...of course the courts will have to appoint the "baby" an independent atty and MD to make medical decisions since the mother may have conflicting interests.

    Your value system says that life begins at conception. Not everyone agrees. Stop forcing your values on others. That's the meaning of freedom.

    ARS