|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
Panhandler 
Group: Members
Posts: 268
Joined: Aug. 2011
|
 |
Posted on: Jan. 09 2013, 2:59 pm |
|
   |
Paul Ryan Cosponsors New Fetal Personhood Bill
Posted: 01/09/2013 12:34 pm EST | Updated: 01/09/2013 12:48 pm EST
Despite the deep unpopularity of fetal personhood bills in 2012, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has again decided to cosponsor the Sanctity of Human Life Act, a bill that gives full legal rights to human zygotes from the moment of fertilization.
Ryan, who reportedly has 2016 presidential ambitions, had to de-emphasize his opposition to abortion without exceptions during the 2012 election to align his position with presidential candidate Mitt Romney. But this year, Ryan has been tapped as a keynote speaker for the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List's sixth annual Campaign for Life Gala, and he is re-upping his support for the most extreme anti-abortion legislation in the country.
The personhood bill, first introduced in 2011 by Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) and reintroduced by Broun last week, specifies that a "one-celled human embryo," even before it implants in the uterus to create a pregnancy, should be granted "all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood." Similar legislation has been rejected by voters in multiple states, including the socially conservative Mississippi, because legal experts have pointed out that it could outlaw some forms of birth control and in vitro fertilization as well as criminalize abortion at all stages.
Broun said in a statement that a zygote's right to life should be "defended vigorously and at all costs."
"As a physician, I know that human life begins with fertilization, and I remain committed to ending abortion in all stages of pregnancy," he said. "I will continue to fight this atrocity on behalf of the unborn, and I hope my colleagues will support me in doing so."
Ryan did not immediately respond to HuffPost's request for comment about his support for the bill, which has 17 co-sponsors.
The bill died in the House of Representatives in 2011, when a record number of anti-abortion bills were being passed, and it is equally unlikely to advance this year. The Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down a state personhood initiative in 2012, deeming it "clearly unconstitutional" because it blocks a woman's legal right to have an abortion.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
wwwest
Group: Members
Posts: 4071
Joined: Dec. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 09 2013, 3:12 pm |
|
 |
See that, the Republicans are too serious about women voters and their choices.
Ryan wants all the women to vote Democrat, apparently, just like me.
But in tradeoff, he will get 100% of the zygote vote. heh
Always remember, there are two kinds of Republicans, those who can count, and those can't. 
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
TehipiteTom
Group: Members
Posts: 5279
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 09 2013, 3:31 pm |
|
|
One thing I've been wondering: if life begins at conception, can I apply for Swiss citizenship? (Zermatt, to be specific, which probably accounts for my love of the mountains. )
--------------
If tautologies are outlawed, only outlaws will use tautologies.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
EastieTrekker
Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 09 2013, 4:38 pm |
|
|
in related news, Ryan is already being projected as the loser of the 2016 Presidential Race.
--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice. 
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
justwalkin
Group: Members
Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2008
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 09 2013, 8:09 pm |
|
|
Maybe he is taking a moral stand because that is what his conscience is telling him to do.
--------------
If a day in the mountains is better than a week at work, why aren't I working in the mountains?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23918
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 09 2013, 9:46 pm |
|
|
(TigerFan @ Jan. 09 2013, 6:36 pm)
QUOTE
(Ben2World @ Jan. 09 2013, 9:04 pm)
QUOTE Life is formed at the fusion of two cells from two DIFFERENT human beings -- not one. No single human being "owns" the fetus -- just as our parents NEVER owned us!
The pregnant mother's role is simply incubator -- protector and nourisher to the fetus -- nothing more.
I am all for adults doing pretty much whatever they want with their own cells. But for the reason stated above, no adult "owns" a fetus. You're confusing biology with the law. The concept of "ownership" is a legal one. If parents don't own their children, it's only because our laws say they don't. Science doesn't care. Don't forget that, in a not-so-distant past in this country, it was possible for one man to own another.
No confusion -- just wanting our laws to be realigned. Our laws treat what we can do to our own person vastly different from what we can do to someone else's person. A fetus -- a biologically distinct human individual who is in an early and rapid growth stage -- is a distinct person -- and should be treated by our laws as such. But this would very much be in contradiction to our current legal stance toward "abortion on demand".
To give one example, our laws say abortion is legal (i.e. our laws do not treat a fetus as an individual and distinct human being in his or her own right). And yet, our laws treat the murder of a pregnant mother as a double homicide! There is a significant inconsistency here, and thus a need for legal realignment -- again, taking into account what I wrote above:
The pregnant mother's role is simply incubator -- protector and nourisher to the fetus -- nothing more.
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
ol-zeke
me in the Tetons
Group: Members
Posts: 10801
Joined: Sep. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 09 2013, 10:00 pm |
|
|
The majority of Americans disagree with the concept of Life begins at Conception, as demonstrated by the votes on state efforts. The USSC has ruled a woman has the right to choose for herself, up to viability. We have a definition of viability that works for most people. Your extreme views are out of line with other Americans.
I have no problem with opposing views, but until there is some sort of real possibility of passing, why would we choose to have this discussion annually? 75% against vs 25% for is not a wise use of legislative effort.
--------------
Everything I know, I learned by doing it wrong at least twice.
The easiest way to ruin a Friday is to realize it is only Tuesday.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
Three
.jpg)
Group: Members
Posts: 753
Joined: Dec. 2011
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 09 2013, 10:18 pm |
|
|
(Ben2World @ Jan. 09 2013, 9:04 pm)
QUOTE
(justwalkin @ Jan. 09 2013, 5:09 pm)
QUOTE Maybe he is taking a moral stand because that is what his conscience is telling him to do. +1. I have debated this with folks right here on this forum. NO ONE could tell me how human life comes into being at the moment of birth -- simply because the mere transit through the birth canal has nothing scientifically / biologically to do with formation of life whatsoever. Roll back the life of the fetus day by day to the moment of conception and you find only development -- not life formation. Life is formed at the fusion of two cells from two DIFFERENT human beings -- not one. No single human being "owns" the fetus -- just as our parents NEVER owned us! The pregnant mother's role is simply incubator -- protector and nourisher to the fetus -- nothing more. I am all for adults doing pretty much whatever they want with their own cells. But for the reason stated above, no adult "owns" a fetus. On this, I wholly support the Republican stance -- although I hope that as more people realize that abortion is the taking away of life -- more Democrats will join the cause as well. Protecting life should NOT be partisan.
+1
If there is the least little bit of doubt of when life begins, better to err on the side of life.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
Three
Group: Members
Posts: 753
Joined: Dec. 2011
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 09 2013, 10:21 pm |
|
|
(ol-zeke @ Jan. 09 2013, 10:00 pm)
QUOTE I have no problem with opposing views, but until there is some sort of real possibility of passing, why would we choose to have this discussion annually? 75% against vs 25% for is not a wise use of legislative effort.[/color]
From Wiki:
QUOTE He (William Wilberforce) headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for twenty-six years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act of 1807.
Regards,
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
TehipiteTom
Group: Members
Posts: 5279
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 09 2013, 11:39 pm |
|
|
(Three @ Jan. 09 2013, 7:18 pm)
QUOTE
(Ben2World @ Jan. 09 2013, 9:04 pm)
QUOTE
(justwalkin @ Jan. 09 2013, 5:09 pm)
QUOTE Maybe he is taking a moral stand because that is what his conscience is telling him to do. +1. I have debated this with folks right here on this forum. NO ONE could tell me how human life comes into being at the moment of birth -- simply because the mere transit through the birth canal has nothing scientifically / biologically to do with formation of life whatsoever. Roll back the life of the fetus day by day to the moment of conception and you find only development -- not life formation. Life is formed at the fusion of two cells from two DIFFERENT human beings -- not one. No single human being "owns" the fetus -- just as our parents NEVER owned us! The pregnant mother's role is simply incubator -- protector and nourisher to the fetus -- nothing more. I am all for adults doing pretty much whatever they want with their own cells. But for the reason stated above, no adult "owns" a fetus. On this, I wholly support the Republican stance -- although I hope that as more people realize that abortion is the taking away of life -- more Democrats will join the cause as well. Protecting life should NOT be partisan. +1 If there is the least little bit of doubt of when life begins, better to err on the side of life.
The fact that Ben has gained the wholehearted endorsement of a disgusting bigoted piece of crap like three tells us everything we need to know about Ben.
--------------
If tautologies are outlawed, only outlaws will use tautologies.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23918
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 10 2013, 12:18 am |
|
|
2012 Gallup Poll - Pro Choice Americans at a record low:
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
ol-zeke
me in the Tetons
Group: Members
Posts: 10801
Joined: Sep. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 10 2013, 12:23 am |
|
|
70% of Americans believe in abortion rights, to one degree or another. Abortion on demand is a fancy name for when ever the woman wants, and most of America is not in favor of third trimester abortions. Up until viability, Americans are pretty much in favor of the right to choose.
I have never seen any reliable polling data that backs up your 2nd point.
Point 3 is the same as pt 1.
If Americans really felt like a fetus was deserving of the same protections as any other citizen, then why would one endangered life be worth more than one only in danger by an abortion?
Nearly 1/3 of all women 15-45 have had an abortion. 88% of all abortions (1.2 million in 2005 ) occur within the first 12 weeks. Another 10% occur by 20 weeks. The law of the land, as interpreted by the USSC has said it is legal, and most of the people of the US back that decision. Only third trimester abortions are heavily regulated.
Only 20% of Americans feel abortion should not be permitted. That is hardly the majority.
Public opinion has remained stable on this subject since the '70s. Not sure why you fail to see the light, unless you like sand in your eyes.
BTW, we have had this discussion many times, and we are getting nowhere, because each of us is convinced we are right. With that, I am bowing out of this discussion for a few days. Maybe I will drop in again to see where the winding road has taken the discussion.
--------------
Everything I know, I learned by doing it wrong at least twice.
The easiest way to ruin a Friday is to realize it is only Tuesday.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23918
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 10 2013, 12:51 am |
|
|
(ol-zeke @ Jan. 09 2013, 9:23 pm)
QUOTE 70% of Americans believe in abortion rights, to one degree or another. Abortion on demand is a fancy name for when ever the woman wants, and most of America is not in favor of third trimester abortions. Up until viability, Americans are pretty much in favor of the right to choose.
I have never seen any reliable polling data that backs up your 2nd point.
Point 3 is the same as pt 1.
If Americans really felt like a fetus was deserving of the same protections as any other citizen, then why would one endangered life be worth more than one only in danger by an abortion?
Nearly 1/3 of all women 15-45 have had an abortion. 88% of all abortions (1.2 million in 2005 ) occur within the first 12 weeks. Another 10% occur by 20 weeks. The law of the land, as interpreted by the USSC has said it is legal, and most of the people of the US back that decision. Only third trimester abortions are heavily regulated.
Only 20% of Americans feel abortion should not be permitted. That is hardly the majority.
Public opinion has remained stable on this subject since the '70s. Not sure why you fail to see the light, unless you like sand in your eyes.
BTW, we have had this discussion many times, and we are getting nowhere, because each of us is convinced we are right. With that, I am bowing out of this discussion for a few days. Maybe I will drop in again to see where the winding road has taken the discussion.
To me, we have no more right to kill a premie than a child, or a child over a teenager... or a teenager over an adult. And I apply this consistently to human life across its entire spectrum... from conception to natural death.
Viability is not a viable way of determining whether a human life is "too old to kill" or "still young enough so go ahead"! Indeed, hospitals now routinely keep alive premies that weigh a pound -- or even a bit less than a pound -- and science continues to make great progress with every passing decade. See how untenable "viability" is?
As well, using "birth" as the white line is untenable as well -- for similar reasons.
As for aborting a child when the mother's health is at grave risk... it would be bizarre to withhold an abortion procedure and just "watch the mother die" -- particularly given the artificial incubator technology we have! Of course we must do everything we can to save the mother -- and the fetus as well as our technology permits.
Finally -- in regard to point 2 -- our laws treat the murder of a pregnant woman as a double homicide -- without regard as to whether the fetus is "just" in its first trimester! As long as the pregnancy is known -- or discovered. THAT reflects our most popular sentiment with regard to what a fetus is. Try telling the husband of a deceased pregnant woman that you see only one homicide -- plus maybe property damage -- and see how far you get...
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39589
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 10 2013, 1:50 am |
|
|
Oh come on: look at the first plot. There hasn't been an iota of change in the "completely illegal" response since 1975!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
It was 21 or so % in 1975 and it is 20% NOW.
And make no mistake, "zygotes are people" IS an abortion should be illegal in all circumstances position.
[insert image of expired equine being abused]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
yosemite girl
Group: Members
Posts: 993
Joined: Oct. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 10 2013, 1:05 pm |
|
|
Here we go again.
Well, you all know where I stand on this - I don't know when "life begins," and, in the legal sense of the word I don't really care.
When the fetus can survive on its own outside of the body, then it is a separate entity. When it can't, it is part of the woman's body and what she does with that is her decision.
My stance is totally based on the most clear way to regulate that both protect's a woman's control over her own body and prevents last minute abortions for reasons other than the mother's life being threatened.
Ethically? No, I don't think an abortion would be for me. But I don't feel the need to legislate my morals. That's not really what the law is for - for instance, marijuana laws. Just because it is illegal doesn't MAKE it immoral. Just because it is legal doesn't mean you have to do it or that it is moral.
More than that, in this instance, there are other much more pressing issues that congress needs to handle before they start the "when does life begin" debate again.
--------------
QUOTE ...there's just something about him.
Something around the eyes...I don't know...reminds me of...me. No. I'm sure of it, I hate him.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39589
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 10 2013, 1:08 pm |
|
|
"Ethically? No, I don't think an abortion would be for me. But I don't feel the need to legislate my morals. That's not really what the law is for - for instance, marijuana laws. Just because it is illegal doesn't MAKE it immoral. Just because it is legal doesn't mean you have to do it or that it is moral."
And I think that expresses many, many, people's positions on this issue. Hence those little varying data points since 1975 on that above plot.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39589
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 10 2013, 2:14 pm |
|
|
(EastieTrekker @ Jan. 10 2013, 11:10 am)
QUOTE
(yosemite girl @ Jan. 10 2013, 1:05 pm)
QUOTE More than that, in this instance, there are other much more pressing issues that congress needs to handle before they start the "when does life begin" debate again. +1
Besides which Stanley Miller and Harold Urey pretty much nailed that one down right?
That "then He missed a good bet" rejoinder to Enrico Fermi always cracks me up.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
EastieTrekker
Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 10 2013, 2:16 pm |
|
|
Then again, introducing a bill that is contrary to the beliefs of the majority of the citizens in this country will get you plenty of air time on the standard media outlets, won't it Mr. Ryan?
--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
|
|
| Post Number: 28
|
|
|
| Post Number: 29
|
|
|
| Post Number: 30
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
