Pregnancy Starts Before Conception? Here’s Why Some Physicians Agree
- Posted on April 20, 2012 at 12:35pm by
Liz Klimas
- Print »
- Email »
(Photo: Shutterstock)
Last week, the Arizona legislature passed a bill, which was signed by the governor, banning abortion at 20 weeks or more of gestation. Here’s the kicker though: the bill’s language places pregnancy as beginning before the child is even conceived.
How does this make sense? The bill defines gestation as ”the age of the unborn child as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman.” New Scientist explains this would mean the “fetal clock” would start ticking about two weeks before conception would even take place:
The purpose of a menstrual period is to get rid of an unfertilised egg, plus all the tissue that has built up in the womb to support it. A new egg typically reaches the uterus two weeks later. In practice, the law therefore bans abortions as early as 18 weeks into the fetus’s development.
Some consider this measurement “disputable biology“, but New Scientist explains many physicians calculate how far along a woman is in pregnancy based on the timing of her last period. In the medical community, New Scientist reports, when pregnancy actually begins is still a debated topic. Some physicians see it beginning at conception, while others state it doesn’t begin until implantation. Farr Curlin, a medical ethicist at the University of Chicago, conducted a survey that found 57 percent of obstetricians and gynecologists believe pregnancy begins at fertilization.
Some physicians measure timing of gestation based on the woman’s last period because it can be difficult to estimate when exactly fertilization occurred, but the last period is more easily remembered.
So, what evidence is the Arizona law based on? New Scientist states:
The idea behind banning late-term abortions is to avoid terminating a fetus that could survive outside the womb – a so-called viable fetus. A 2001 study found that 75 percent of fetuses could survive at 25 weeks, but none survived at 21 weeks, counting from the last menstrual period.
“No baby born at 20 weeks gestation has ever survived anywhere in the world,” says John Lantos of the Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri.
The Arizona law also states that, based on “strong medical evidence”, an unborn foetus can feel pain during an abortion at 20 weeks. The issue of when a fetus can feel pain has been hotly contested. However, it is widely considered that brain pathways responsible for the perception of pain are not thought to be complete until 26 to 29 weeks.
New Scientist points out that six other states ban abortions after 20 weeks as well, except in cases of medical emergency, but they cite pregnancy as beginning at actual conception.
As for the Arizona law itself, supporters state it was created in the interest of women’s health. The Arizona Republic has more:
“This bill is intended to protect women,” said Center for Arizona Policy President Cathi Herrod. “The safety risks to the mother and the pain endured by the child after 20 weeks is just too high.”
[...]
Rep. Kimberly Yee, R-Phoenix, who sponsored the bill, said the goal was to protect both the health of women and that of the fetus.
“The state has a compelling interest to protect women from the serious health and safety risks of abortion,” Yee said.
The Arizona Republic reports Planned Parenthood of Arizona lobbyist Michelle Steinberg saying it was the “most extreme piece of anti-abortion legislation” in the country.
Read more about the new law here.
Comments (86)
Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 577 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 404 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 372 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 343 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 404 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 343 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 150 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Jennifer_D
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 1:32amRe: Some physicians measure timing of gestation based on the woman’s last period because it can be difficult to estimate when exactly fertilization occurred, but the last period is more easily remembered.
Pregnancy does start before conception. That is why there are so many recommendations for women of childbearing age. Do this, don’t do this, make sure you get enough folic acid, discontinue use of medication if you suspect you are pregnant, etc. Even if someone wants to argue that babies can’t live outside of the womb at 20 weeks there is no denying the health-related benefits of this bill. Good health for baby begins with good health of mother. There is also something to be said for the fact that this bill protects life.
Re: The Arizona Republic reports Planned Parenthood of Arizona lobbyist Michelle Steinberg saying it was the “most extreme piece of anti-abortion legislation” in the country.
As usual PP is on board to ensure that their cash flow doesn’t slow down. They will do anything to continue to misinform the public because it is their bread and butter. There are vultures out there who attempt to manipulate and misinform people of the truth related to reproduction. A related and creepy thing is that there are those that claim women are not born with a certain number of eggs. If that were true we wouldn’t see the push for egg donation. Cha-ching; just like the abortion biz!!!
Report Post »Eyeball
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 1:24amPeople can argue about it until the cows come home, but life begins at conception. Common sense.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 12:50amIs this really anything other than what we’ve come to expect from Arizona?
Report Post »JEANNIEMAC
Posted on April 21, 2012 at 10:36pmhttp://www.onenewsnow.com/Business/Default.aspx?id=1558090
Report Post »Planned Parenthood sells aborted baby parts to New Zealand, where it is legal. In addition to cooperating with the Agenda 21 protocols for population control, PP makes a profit by killing babies.
Tracy Y. Andersen
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 11:41pmIf women have the right to murder… er, abort an unborn child, then what of men’s rights? Doesn’t a man, who had half of the responsibility for the creation of that child, have a say in the life of it? Okay, you’re going to say the woman has it in her, where as the man has no part of it. Excuse me? If he is any man at all, he is providing the support for that woman, and the child she is carrying, by working to put food in her mouth, thus supporting her. Roof over her head, and so on…. Why do men’s rights go out the window when women want to be stupid in crying “women’s health“ when her ”health” isn’t the thing at all, but her selfishness for wanting to screw up her life without any thought of what anyone else thinks about her welfare, caring for her, and indeed, may I say it — loving her and the child she is carrying? But no, we are PC and have the “war on women” that divides us, marginalizes and trivializes men, making their wishes and thoughts of no worth, compared to the woman’s selfish wishes.
Men don’t understand women? Oh, but we do, all too well, sometimes. A real man understands and supports the woman’s viewpoint, and adds his viewpoint to the marriage. And a sane, stable woman will understand the man’s viewpoint, and together, they will have a viable, stable marriage, and raise good children.
But no; we must be PC, divide and destroy the marriage sanctity, set women against men, divide and destroy the very morality that undergi
Report Post »Gumbercules
Posted on April 21, 2012 at 1:55amNice post.
Report Post »nosharia
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:47pmSorry guys! This one I cannot buy. Unless you are the Virgin Mary, you have to do the deed to get the baby. Embarrassing for AZ.
Report Post »StatenJM
Posted on April 21, 2012 at 12:09pmWell the “tissue” of her egg is (on a cell physiological sense) alive. Therefore to form a child all it needs is its other half (sperm – which is also “alive”). It becomes a new “tissue” (or I’d rather use being) as soon as they meet because it now has DNA from both the mother and the father and is no longer strictly of the mother or strictly of the father, but again a new being. Because the body has a very intrinsic and innate timeline to how ovulation/fertilization works, though there are sometimes some unknown “hiccups” (though most end in no fertilization or death of the new “tissue”) these “hiccups” in the timeline that still provide a viable fertilization can sometimes be tricky to pinpoint actual fertilization time and thereby having the language of the bill to say pregnancy occurs before conception makes sure that (from a abortion senario) the fetus would be under 20 weeks of age.
Report Post »ThirtyEightWinks
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 6:24pmThe term “conception” is ambiguous. It used to mean the same thing as “fertilization.“ Some people want to redefined it to mean ”implantation,“ so that a ”morning after pill,” for example, would not be considered an abortifacient. For clarity, use “fertilization” or “implantation” instead, depending on what you mean.
Report Post »Spokane Armory
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 6:04pm@TEDDRUNK
Now THAT was funny!
Report Post »geonj
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 4:37pmthey worry about when pregnancy begins when they can’t decide when life begins. it is all a distraction. pray the rosary with the intention of overturning roe V wade. until abortion is made illegal we will continue to be a politically polarized country. since it is a litmus test for a political candidate’s ability to lead the country, abortion needs to be taken out of the equation and the sanctity of life must be restored. obama is so much better as a leader (not) because he believes in murdering babies. absurd.
Report Post »steveh931
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 4:32pmMy daughter was born at 27 weeks, with a grade 3 bleed in the brain, two collapsed lungs, weighing 3 pounds at birth, she dropped to 2.3 lbs after one week. She spent 9.5 weeks in the neonatal intensive care unit and was sent home with a apnea monitor and a large bottle of oxygen. today, my daughter is 27, has graduated from college with her degree and teaches children that are handicapped. The technology available to doctors and nurses today has greatly improved, more and more children are being saved by the faith of the caring. Whenever I hear people talk about when life begins I think of her and the the human body exhibit I witnessed at the Luxor Hotel and Casino in Vegas, simply amazing.
Report Post »sodacrackers2
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 5:18pmWhat a joy to read your story. God bless you and your daughter. All life is precious.
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 8:05pmGreat story and point. The moment that a life can potentially begin is at conception. However, not all human children in the stage of pre-implantation are in fact implanted and most do not implant at all. Because of this, the natural point at which a child should be guaranteed the right to life is at implantation, generally 24-48 hours after fertilization. As long as medicine keeps getting better and better, they will be able to save ever younger children. This will continue up until mere weeks or even days after implantation. As long as pro-abortionists keep pushing to define a person as not being a person until some arbitrary point decided by modern medicine, they will continually be wrong.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on April 21, 2012 at 12:19am@ SG (whatever)….the point is that if left to nature, the usual end result of pregancy is a child, there is a HUGE difference between spontaneus abortion and elective abortion.
No one has the right to deprive the right to life. In the vast majority of cases the only reason it isn’t a real life rather than a “potential” life is due to elective abotion.
I don’t care how you term it, abortion is murder (unless and only if the life of the mother is at stake – a woman has the right to protect her own life – not her convenience) – and I contend given the choice – most woman would sacrifice everything and anything for her child to live at the expense of her own life
Report Post »walkintruth
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 4:30pmIn biblical days, it was a blessing to be pregnant. Things are so mixed up now. The president says it is a punishment. That is sad that we don‘t see it as God’s favor. A part of you will live on. How can people kill something they created with their DNA? No matter how it happened, it is still a miracle. It is still partially you.
Report Post »hatchetjob
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:16pmI think the reason it‘s considered a punishment is because the way some children aren’t disciplined. The kids these days run amuck. In olden times it was a blessing because kids were raised better, with respect for others for instance.
Report Post »clothessandwich
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 12:28amWait, I’m sorry, pregnancy was a blessing in Biblical times? Wasn‘t Eve’s punishment the unthinkable pain and danger of childbirth?
Report Post »thegreatcarnac
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 4:21pmNo abortion unless the woman’s life depends on it; or she was raped; or incest.
Report Post »If both parents or liberals…then abort it now.
mrsmileyface
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 3:54pmBUZZZZ! you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal and unlawfull abortion of a human fetus. Be Well.
Report Post »mrsmileyface
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 3:57pmMorality code. DOH!
Report Post »s0ck_monkey
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 3:15pmThe “sanctity of life” is a self-serving concept derived from a completely biased point of view. Dead people could care less about the sanctity of life. Why? Beacuse we’re alive – self interest! We came up with it to help ourselves somehow feel “noble”…and at the same time, we get to choose which forms of life (and other peoples lives) that are “sacred” and we get to kill the rest.
Pretty neat deal!
As far as pregnancy starting before conception takes places…isn’t that almost like being able to scramble an egg before the chicken & rooster mate?
Report Post »sodacrackers2
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 5:20pmSock honey, those eggs we eat are not fertilized.
Report Post »TulsaYeeHaw
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 6:01pmDo you really spend time thinking about chicken sex?
Report Post »guntotinsquaw
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 6:08pmSoda…depends on where you get your eggs, my pens consist of 20 hens 3 roosters. So farm fresh eggs are most likely fertile and are perfectly safe to eat. With store bought eggs, it depends on the farms. Most are never fertile and not so safe to eat.
Report Post »s0ck_monkey
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 6:39pmNo, I don’t spend that much time thinking about chicken sex – I was being silly, goofy, tongue-in-cheek, while trying to be slightly humorous. Either it was an epic failure on my part to make that point, or an epic fail on yours not to catch it. Matters not to me which ine you pick…
However, I DO spend alot of time contemplating the the sexual awesome-ness that produced a duck-billed platypus! Admit it, a beaver raping a duck is pretty damn funny…
Report Post »R.A. Bullseye
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 11:21pmChickens and Roosters don’t have to mate in order for a hen to lay an egg. You need to go back to H.S. biology 101.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on April 21, 2012 at 12:28am@ Sock…what? this is supposed to resemble a reasoned, logical argument how? Perhaps that which is truely scrambled is your brain?
Report Post »rollthebones
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 2:53pmGood.
Report Post »vaman
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 2:35pmAt conception, 2 cells becoming 1 does not make a person. So no issue of abortion there. But at later stages, it’s just too late. You have to live with your mistake and raise your kid. Hopefully he or she won’t end up in prison or on welfare forever. Well then maybe abortion is good if it keeps future undesirables off of the tax payers back. And really, you can’t be for abortion, endless wars and the death penalty. By the logic of some, they all involve killing people, innocent or not, but abortion seems to be the only bad one.
Report Post »ValiantDefender
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 3:07pmVAMAN, I’m not sure where you took Biology, …
“At conception, 2 cells becoming 1 does not make a person.” This is a question of semantics maybe, but actually, 2 cells becoming 1 is the only way to make a person. You‘re saying those 2 cells aren’t quite a person yet. But they will be!
“And really, you can’t be for abortion, endless wars and the death penalty. By the logic of some, they all involve killing people, innocent or not, but abortion seems to be the only bad one.”
I think most people would disagree.
We don’t desire to go to war. We wish that making laws would be sufficient to create a society where people don’t fight. Its their immoral activity (usually) that moves America to fight. Barring our Govt lying to us about motivations, I think that is true!
SO, in summary, the things that CAUSE war are illegal and bad.
Report Post »90% of why people get abortions should be illegal and are immoral and bad.
Death penalty? If the people decide there are crimes so Heinous that justice is only begun to be served by the death of the individual, then so be it. BUt let that society also be one that believes – sincerely – in “innocent until proven guilty”.
VoteBushIn12
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 3:22pm@ValiantDefender
I see your point on the death penalty (though I don’t agree with it). However, your contention of how war is different is a little loose.
“We don’t desire to go to war”
No one desires to have an abortion, it’s an unfortunate decision that must be made. In the same way governments try and weigh pros and cons of sending thousands of young adults to their death, so too does a pregnant mother-to-be weigh the blessings and rigors of motherhood.
At the end of the day, you have to trust their judgement as they know what is best for them and their family; in the same you trust the government to send our troops to war for admirable reasons.
Report Post »Intense66
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 3:38pmI cannot see your point between abortion and the death penalty. Abortion is the killing of an INNOCENT life by a typically irresponsible person. The death penalty on the other hand, is terminating the a life of a person with no moral compass. Yesterday, here in Oklahoma, we remembered that 17 years ago, an individual with no moral compass (Timothy McVey), killed 168 people (19 of those were children) when he bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in OKC. He was sentenced to death and excuted in June of 2001. Now draw me a comparision between killing babies and killing Timothy McVey who committed the first terriorist attack on American soil…
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on April 21, 2012 at 12:25am@ Vote…if no one really desires an abortion, then why are theer so many happening every day? Really, that is the best you’ve got?
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on April 21, 2012 at 2:50pm@KAYDEEBEAU
People don’t like getting into car accidents, but that happens every day.
People don’t like being addicted to drugs and doing drugs, but that happens every day.
People don’t like blowing all their money on gambling, but that happens every day.
People don’t like having to pay high prices for gas, but that happens every day.
People don’t like having to clean their house, but that happens every day.
I could go on.
How stupid can you be to think people DESIRE to get abortions. Most women don’t even like going to the gynecologist to begin with – what makes you think they’d want to go to one that is even more invasive?
To quote a phrase I heard recently,
Report Post »“Really, that is the best you’ve got?”
theninthplanet
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 2:21pmThe Arizona bill had to craft its language very carefully, to avoid getting the meaning changed by liberals.
Why isn’t the pill called an abortifacient even though it can kill a baby?
http://www.all.org/article/index/id/Njc5
Report Post »PoliticalTs.com
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 1:25pmWhat happens when medical science improves, and we can sustain a baby outside the womb at 5 weeks? Just because it is sustainable outside the womb has nothing to do wether it is a person or not. Conception makes it person, not development, nothing else makes any sense. At no other point can we absolutly pin point that a drastic change has taken place, so that it has become a person. If you can simply go by age, why not say, a parent can abort their child up to age 18, when they actually become an adult?
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 2:31pmWhen I discrete object becomes 2 then they are separate and indepenent. A Woman & fetus coexist as 1. Birth or any separation makes 2. This has nothing to do with Age, a legal definition, nor location. This is question about… Discriminating… if, and, when there are 1 object or 2 objects… as each Object has Rights.
In my Opinion… only at Separation or Birth are there 2 Objects… and in the opposing Opinion, Woman & fetus are 2 Objects. So, how do you create Laws with 2 different Perceptions of Reality?
Report Post »OhioRifleman
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 2:32pmYour point is valid, and as it happens the less-than-ideal states of the world make it a point that the death of a fetus, baby or child is not a big deal and/or ideal for population control.
Any term not explicitly defined will eventually be abused by leftists in their quest to cull the human population.
Report Post »JediKnight
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 2:45pm@LukerW: That’s not true. They coexist as two separate entities. This is the reason for the morning sickness. It’s also the reason why about 10% of women miscarry. The body (the woman’s body) sees the child as a foreign object (which it is) and tries to get rid of it. If it’s successful, the woman miscarries. If it isn’t (most of the time it isn’t), the child grows and a birth occurs. But this is why it’s so important to not take certain drugs, at least during the first trimester. According to my wife’s ob, Advil (Ibuprofen) prevents the egg from implanting and can cause a miscarriage.
The point is, they are in fact two separate entities. The child even has its own immune system which changes at birth.
Report Post »DrFrost
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 3:10pm@LUKERW
So you would never count conjoined twins as two separate individuals? An odd viewpoint that I don‘t think you’d find many people agreeing with. But you are, of course, free to have your own opinion.
Report Post »TulsaYeeHaw
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 6:06pmSo if a pregnant woman is murdered, like Laci Peterson, according to you, is it 1 murder or 2?
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 8:05pm@DRFROST
Report Post »One Soul… per Human… even if Two Heads or Two Hearts!
lukerw
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 8:15pm@TULSAYEEHAW
Report Post »To me… that is 1 Murder (how many times should you be able to Kill a Murderer?)… and if you do not Kill a Merderer, your Laws (eye for an eye) are screwed up!
lukerw
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 8:52pm@JEDIKNIGHT
Report Post »‘Coexist’ (Parasite & Host) as ‘Separate’… is a conflict in terminology… as they are Not Separately Viable… whereas a Parasite is Separately Viable from the Host! Your actual arguement is… if it looks & functions alike a Human then it is a Human with all such Rights. My arguement is: a fetus is not a Human and does not have Rights, as it can be terminated by the Host for various reasons… and I do not want Prosecutors investigating eash occurance, Just leave Women alone!
kaydeebeau
Posted on April 21, 2012 at 12:44am@ LukeW…obviously you have no concept of the phrase “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” It means that the punishment should fit the crime. In Biblical times, all other “civilizations” exacted revenge in that if I stole your chicken, your family would wipe out my whole family, so God’s (and the Israelites) way was that if I stole your chicken, you should only demand or be entitled to another chicken and a small resritution for the trouble.
Yet again an unlearned Biblical scholar attempting to use Biblical support that doesn’t meet the Truth
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on April 21, 2012 at 8:03am@KAYDEE…
My knowledge of history is Doctoral: The ‘eye for an eye’ law was established in the Hammurabi Code of 282 Laws dating to 1777 bc in Babylon… providing for an equal sense of uniform justice… but also serving to Limit Punishment for Minor Crimes.
What you fail to understand is: Alike the Limits upon Government in the Constitution… Law should be Limited… and not involved in a Woman’s Body… for when you attempt to address something that Offends you (Matthew 5:29)… you create Unintended Consequences… which can harm all Women & their Children!
Stop creating Laws; Stop being a Fascist!
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 1:11pmAnd… the god Zeus came down… and took on Mortal Form…
Report Post »JRook
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 1:29pmIt is simply amazing that anyone would put their name on such a garbage report. The same people here who spout off about the when life begins are the same ones who come to Zimmerman’s defense and want the US to bomb more targets, regardless of the toll on innocent civilian lives, in Afghanistan. Clearly residual effects of excessive alcohol consumption.
Report Post »crazyrightwingmom
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 5:18pmJ. Rook: speaking of innocent targets, how many wars and new countries, without approval, has obumma meddled in?
Report Post »Mandors
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 1:10pmAt 18 or 20 week,s it’s a person. If you’ve seen sonograms at 18 weeks; it’s a person. No question. Calling an 18 week old unborn CHILD a “fetus” is as offensive and dehumanizing as the words “******” or “****.”
Report Post »teddrunk
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 1:07pmMy God, what is Arizona doing. How much longer can they make life harder on women, who simply want to kill their own kids. Those poor women. Think of the extra hardship this creates in their bid to snuff out human life.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 1:19pmIt’s always refreshing to listen to men telling women what we need to do to live our lives correctly.
TEA
Report Post »Melvin Spittle
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 2:09pmYour welcome MONICNE. Do you believe that because one is a male and an elected leader, they should recuse themselves from this issue? Do you choose to ignore the obvious fact that for us Christians and others as well, that we are following our beliefs and your gender has nothing to do with it? You do not understand the basic concept that for us, we see the child being aborted as a person with a soul that has no choice in the matter and therefore we are advocates for the weakest and most innocent and because of this position, we have a logical stake in this issue that you feel is a woman’s choice alone.
Your one liner sarcasm only indicates you have no argument.
Report Post »thekuligs
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 2:32pmWould it make you feel better, if I, a female, repeated the exact same thing?
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 3:22pmIn a marriage a man always or should have a say. Marriage is give in take. If a is the only one making the decision of aborting or carrying to term, that is a wounded & sick marriage.
Report Post »TruthAlways801
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 3:30pmI second Melvins response to Monicne’s moronic statement.
Report Post »MOLLYPITCHER
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 6:51pmYou are absolutely right Tedd. Without the father and mother both there would be no baby. Perhaps people who think that it is simply a woman’s issue need to go through sex ed again. A baby is as much the father’s as the mothers. I know people get bent out of shape about a woman being raped, but a baby has no control over how it came into being.
Report Post »hatchetjob
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:18pmYes, I do wish men would stay out of women’s healthcare.
Report Post »teddrunk
Posted on April 21, 2012 at 5:19amMurder is “Women’s Health Care”? Only in a liberal world.
Report Post »PoliticalTs.com
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 1:03pmAborting should only be allowed in a instance where the fetus is threatening the health of the mother. It is called self defense, this and is their is irefutable evidence that the child will be born so deformed as to not be able to live at all outside the womb.
Think about all the Nobel peace prize winners, and future Presidents that have been killed before even haveinf a chance to reach their potenstial. Like this guy.
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On8eTIqhqRE&context=C458c960ADvjVQa1PpcFO2kep4GZTzwDKRvYojM3thjI3M0C9_2Rg=
TEARS FOR AMERICA
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 7:18pmI have known both those who aborted their children for deformities and those who no matter the deformity allowed the child to be born naturally and my experience is those who aborted experienced greater emotional stress…a peaceful closure came with those that let the normal birth pattern happen naturally. If there has there been a study, I am not aware of it.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 12:53pmKeep legislating morality – see what happens.
TEA
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 1:15pmKeep Law out of the Womb… you Perverted Fascists, who want tell people what to do!
Report Post »PoliticalTs.com
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 1:17pmSo you believe banning murder is “legislating morality”? The moment our government decided that killing a person that has no ability to defend themselves, for virtually any reason, we ceased to be a moral country, and we are doomed unless this is eventually overturned, I give the US fifty years from Roe V. Wade, before we are destryed from within.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 1:17pmDon’t even go their Encinom – the left is trying to legislate what we eat, when we eat so tell what is different here? They are banning salt, McDonalds Happy Meals.
We are trying to stop women from killing their baby. I guess you are for murder by your statement. Your hypocrisy is astounding. Kill the baby – save a cop killer; Kill the baby – save a seal; kill the baby – eliminate the death penalty. See the pattern you support?
Report Post »scuba13
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 1:20pmShouldn‘t you be under Encinom’s bed, because we all know your his rubber blow up doll.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 1:51pmSave the baby – kill a cop killer; save the baby – kill a seal; save the baby – enforce the death penalty. See the pattern you support?
TEA
Report Post »theninthplanet
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 2:19pmKill the innocent baby, save the eagle/turtle eggs. Kill the innocent baby, save the rapists. Kill the innocent baby, save the terrorists.
Killing an innocent baby is OK, except when you‘re killing it because it’s a girl. Killing an innocent 2 year old is OK, because it doesn‘t know it’s human yet.
But you’re right. We’re only against killing children because we hate women. :rollseyes:
Report Post »Melvin Spittle
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 2:24pmENCINOM/MONICNE, Ban infanticide AND the death penalty. How is that for you?
Report Post »Melvin Spittle
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 2:29pmMurder and pedophilia are against the law. Boom! To find the remnants of your argument, you will need a scanning electron microscope. Now get back in the kitchen and make me a sammich!
Report Post »TruthAlways801
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 3:35pm@monicne What happens when taking morality out of legislation actually occurs? (all good people will fight that forever) Complete destruction, corruption, chaos and collapse from within. Oh wait, isn’t that what is happening? The more morals that are not protected and laws created protecting them the more evil and satanic society becomes, I see you’re already there. You’ll be one of the first to be a victim of it I am sure.
Report Post »LongRange
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 5:54pmMonicine/Encinom, Please quit posting TEA after all of your nonsensical posts… No one believes you
Report Post »guntotinsquaw
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 6:18pmTruth..The problem is your code of morals isn’t everyones code. My people had faith and freedom, but you “Christians” deemed us uncivilized heathens. What christians couldn’t convert they slaughtered. Please keep your faith out of my laws, practice your faith freely, but quit shoving it on me.
Report Post »TruthAlways801
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 11:50pm@GUNTOTINSQUAW not a chance. We’ll keep Gods laws in our laws forever and ultimately Gods laws will be the only laws that exist so I suggest you get use to it. Those Christians that murdered innocents were self proclaimed Christians and used religion to do evil horrible things. We are nothing of the sort, we want goodness, love and freedom to all human beings especially those who do not have the ability to defend their rights for themselves.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on April 21, 2012 at 12:37am@ LukeW…so if nothing was done what would the end esult of a pregnancy be? What is it that everyone knows (whether they admit is or not) that a woman is going to have a baby, not a fetus, not a clump of cells, it is a baby who without external interference would come out of the womb – a small, helpless human.
Are you really so callous?
Report Post »texasbeta
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 12:53pmThis might be the most moronic thing I have read this week…and as a frequent reader of this website, that is saying something.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 1:04pmYou got that right. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and woman have the same right to privacy and liberty as any other citizen. The premise of right of privacy in Roe v. Wade is the weaker of the two rights. As woman have the right to liberty to make their own reproductive decisions.
Report Post »Captain Crunch
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 1:17pmIf a woman has the right to murder her unborn child then all of us have the right to murder our children at any age. You people who think abortion is ok need to have your heads examined.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 1:20pmSo you support a woman’s right to murder her unborn child. Hmm. says everything I want to know about you. Does any life meet the sanctity to continue in your book? If you support murder, then you have no problem in Zimmerman aborting Trayvon Martin?
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 1:38pm@CAPTAIN…
Report Post »The Government did not Free the Slaves… rather, GOD gives Humans their Rights… and foremost is the Exclusive Right to one’s own Body… which Government should not invade: a Citizen has a Right to Smoke, Drink, Speak, etc… and there is no Government Right to test DNA, for Drugs, on any other Invasive procedure, alike Rape. Under the Constitution, Government is Limited… not the people; It is a Declaration of Freedom!
lukerw
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 1:59pm@COFEMALE
An UnBorn Chrild… is alike a Pregnant Virgin… a Miracle! This is Arazona-thinking… and illogical. Before Birth… a fetus lives as part of the Woman, even shares her Soul… but, after, is a Child, Souled, and a Being with Rights. If a Woman is Responsible for the fetus as a person, then a MisCarriage is a form of Murder… as are the Fertilized Eggs that pass through the Womb.
Fascist always go to far in attempting to Order Society, Control People, and define Law! Hence, people who base their Philosophy upon Freedom… have none of these problems “I’m OK; you’r OK”!
Report Post »kadster01
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 3:20pm@LUKERW
“If a Woman is Responsible for the fetus as a person, then a MisCarriage is a form of Murder…”
Oh, come on now! A miscarriage is no more murder than death from cancer is suicide. An abortion is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy. A miscarriage is, usually, the unintentional failure to carry a baby to full term (excluding those incidents wherein women, or someone else, deliberately force a miscarriage). The difference is gigantic.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 8:08pm@KADSTER01
Report Post »You are making my Point: Where this Law leads is to a Stupid Conclusion!
ThePostman
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 12:53pmWe must all protect a woman’s right to murder other human beings.
Report Post »teddrunk
Posted on April 20, 2012 at 1:21pmWell what do you expect from a gender that got us kicked out of Paradise.
Report Post »