DVOR pretends to actually debate this point. Of course HUMAN LIFE exists. Human cancer is HUMAN LIFE... But it's not a HUMAN BEING! Human sperm is HUMAN LIFE... But it's not a HUMAN BEING! Human skin cells are HUMAN LIFE... But it's not a HUMAN BEING! Human blood is HUMAN LIFE... But it's not a HUMAN BEING! Human zygotes are HUMAN LIFE... But it's not a HUMAN BEING! etc etc etc.
Your religious beliefs are yours... why force them on the rest of us?
Wow, you proved the age-old proverb "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt. It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt." You have removed ALL doubt about the foolishness of your position.
You know very well that the examples that you give are NOT the equivalent - by any stretch - with a human baby in the womb. If you think they are than you aren't just a SCIENCE DENIER but grossly illiterate when it comes to science.
Your last argument is illogical. The obvious response is: Why should YOU, Tonko, Tkaczyk and the rest of the "abortion without restriction" crowd push YOUR beliefs on any one else? So obviously, you extremist leftist wing nuts don't believe in democracy or the American system. You believe that ONLY your beliefs and views should be heard and enacted into law.
The Scientific FACT remains that the fetus in the womb is an individual human baby. If you belief in the statements on liberties and human rights contained in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, than you would believe that ALL human persons have a right to life and deserve protection.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
Why should YOU, Tonko, Tkaczyk and the rest of the "abortion without restriction" crowd push YOUR beliefs on any one else?
DVOR is no not making sense.
I support CHOICE. I don't PUSH MY BELIEFS on anyone else. BUT YOU DO!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I support CHOICE. I don't PUSH MY BELIEFS on anyone else. BUT YOU DO!
IF you believe that EVERY human person is of equal value and IF you believe in Constitutional Rights, Civil Rights and Human Rights than the Respect Life position makes absolutely perfect sense. Obviously, you don't believe in Constitutional, Civil and Human Rights. Obviously, you believe like Hitler and others throughout history that some human persons are of more value than others.
And YES - the pro-abortion crowd - including you - is pushing their beliefs on others. Well be prepared to feel the push back - and to keep feeling it - as the Respect Life voters DEMAND that their elected officials respect and protect ALL human life.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
IF you believe that EVERY human person is of equal value and IF you believe in Constitutional Rights, Civil Rights and Human Rights than the Respect Life position makes absolutely perfect sense. Obviously, you don't believe in Constitutional, Civil and Human Rights. Obviously, you believe like Hitler and others throughout history that some human persons are of more value than others.
And YES - the pro-abortion crowd - including you - is pushing their beliefs on others. Well be prepared to feel the push back - and to keep feeling it - as the Respect Life voters DEMAND that their elected officials respect and protect ALL human life.
No, DV, the "pro-abortion" as YOU call them are merely people who believe in FREEDOM. YOU are the one who is trying to FORCIBLY SHOVE YOUR PERSONAL RELIGIOLUS BELIEFS on others.
The constitution allows Americans freedom of religion, which means freedom FROM this government declaring that the beliefs and dogma of the Roman Catholic church are the official laws of the country.
Obviously DV, you do NOT believe in the constitution of the U.S and the freedom for everyone to believe as they choose.
Obviously you believe that everyone should live and that means you also believe that it is was just and proper for Lemuel Smith to live too, right? He was not put to death and he then went and killed a prison guard, but he a right to life, correct? I guess you believe that Islamic terrorists have a right to life too, yes?
Tell us DV, do you have the GUTS to respond to this? Should the U.S. impose Catholic law or Sharia law on the people of the country? Tell us why one religion's beliefs are to be forced upon all.
Do you have the GUTS to respond to that?
Of course not. DV will NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER address the freedom of religion.
DV, do YOU belief that the beliefs of any other religion should be FORECED on you? If not, then explain why YOU belief the belief's of YOUR religion should be forced upon others.
Optimists close their eyes and pretend problems are non existent. Better to have open eyes, see the truths, acknowledge the negatives, and speak up for the people rather than the politicos and their rich cronies.
DV's very own words -- he "loves Sue Savage" a pro-choice person. But when DV is confronted by EVIDENCE of his LIES, he avoids comment.
Mark my words, DV will PRETEND that we are blocked and PRETEND that he does not see this image of HIS VERY OWN WORDS
Optimists close their eyes and pretend problems are non existent. Better to have open eyes, see the truths, acknowledge the negatives, and speak up for the people rather than the politicos and their rich cronies.
No, DV, the "pro-abortion" as YOU call them are merely people who believe in FREEDOM. YOU are the one who is trying to FORCIBLY SHOVE YOUR PERSONAL RELIGIOLUS BELIEFS on others.
.
don't be ridiculous!!!! DV is NOT forcibly shoving his religious beliefs on ANYONE! dv is just stating an personal opinion/belief!!!!!
be realistic here mc1....if you wanted to go for an abortion tomorrow....I hardly doubt that dv or anyone else would prevent that from happening!!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
don't be ridiculous!!!! DV is NOT forcibly shoving his religious beliefs on ANYONE! dv is just stating an personal opinion/belief!!!!!
be realistic here mc1....if you wanted to go for an abortion tomorrow....I hardly doubt that dv or anyone else would prevent that from happening!!!
I think an abortion would be prevented. Can an abortion be performed on Mike, a male? Just a little bit of busting on you because you don't know if it's Mr or Mrs posting.
Well, he is almost calling all pro-choice candidates killers, anti life. Many races around here he is posting on, but for some reason he is posting one word bout the Farley-Thorne race, and we all know he is an extreme hater of Farley, so why is he avoiding speaking on that race. I mean really, he expressed his love for Farley's (pro-choice) opponent from 4 years ago, his gal Sue Savage, why no comment on that race this time around????
But seriously, even for people who personally oppose abortion and would not have one themselves, I doubt that there will ever be a halt to legal abortions in this country. And it really wouldn't have as much to do with the legislators as much as judges anyway, well, until they rule and then legislators start trying to re-do laws/make new ones.
Optimists close their eyes and pretend problems are non existent. Better to have open eyes, see the truths, acknowledge the negatives, and speak up for the people rather than the politicos and their rich cronies.
You know very well that the examples that you give are NOT the equivalent - by any stretch - with a human baby in the womb. If you think they are than you aren't just a SCIENCE DENIER but grossly illiterate when it comes to science.
Religious extremism is science denial.
Science never proved that a human exists at conception.
You are simply making false claims and accusations as usual.
Feel free to show us a link to where science has proven conclusively that your fantasy is a reality.
IF you believe that EVERY human person is of equal value and IF you believe in Constitutional Rights, Civil Rights and Human Rights than the Respect Life position makes absolutely perfect sense. Obviously, you don't believe in Constitutional, Civil and Human Rights. Obviously, you believe like Hitler and others throughout history that some human persons are of more value than others.
And YES - the pro-abortion crowd - including you - is pushing their beliefs on others. Well be prepared to feel the push back - and to keep feeling it - as the Respect Life voters DEMAND that their elected officials respect and protect ALL human life.
DVOR again is not making sense. If you believe that "EVERY HUMAN LIFE is sacred, then you must be outraged at liposuction which kills hundreds of millions of cells of HUMAN LIFE. If you see someone bleeding you must be terrified because that blood contains BILLIONS OF CELLS of HUMAN LIFE. If you were have your appendix removed, I'm sure you would have a funeral for the HUMAN LIFE that was lost.
Really DVOR. Human Cells are HUMAN LIFE. Just like a Human Zygote is HUMAN LIFE... BUT THEY ARE NOT HUMAN BEINGS.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Pregnant Women Increasingly Face Criminal Prosecution for Positive Drug Tests Hello fetus, goodbye civil liberties Elizabeth Nolan Brown | May 16, 2014
EMAIL SHARE PRINT
Email Michael Foox/FlickrMichael Foox/FlickrThe "crack baby" panic may have gone the way of the cassette tape, but America's womb-based war on drugs is alive and kicking. Fueled by a potent mix of drug war propaganda and fetal rights advocacy, states have been charging pregnant women who use drugs—however casually or legally—with everything from child neglect and "chemical endangerment" to contributing to the delinquency of a minor and felony assault.
A study from the National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) highlighted 413 cases of pregnant women being incarcerated or forced into drug treatment in the U.S. between 1973 and 2005. Since then, there have been at least 300 more cases, a number that NAPW said is a severe under-count.
This is in addition to the untold number of pregnant women who are reported to child protective services (CPS) agencies because of positive drug tests. Protocols vary between states, counties, and hospital systems, but in many, pregnant women are automatically tested for drugs at maternity wards or in the course of prenatal care. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that drug testing pregnant women without consent was unconstitutional—but only when it could lead to criminal charges. And consent is a fuzzy concept here anyway, often given in the signing of general pregnancy medical forms.
In New York City, more than a dozen maternity wards regularly drug test new mothers, turning any positive results over to child protective services. City attorneys estimate that 100 to 200 neglect cases each year stem from these tests.
New York is one of 17 states that specifically address pregnant women's drug use in civil child neglect laws. In some, it's possible to take away a child based on a single positive drug test, regardless of whether the newborn exhibits symptoms of such exposure, whether the mother was using the drug as part of prescribed medical treatment, and absent any other reasons to suspect maternal drug addiction or unfitness to parent. The zero-tolerance policy has resulted in neglect investigations and even temporary child removal for positive drug tests stemming from poppy seeds, medical marijuana, and prescription opioids.
But some states aren't content merely taking away women's kids for these transgressions. NAPW warns of "an increasing trend toward viewing pregnancy as a proper subject of the criminal law."
At the forefront of these efforts is Tennessee, which recently passed a law allowing women to be charged with assault, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, for babies born "addicted to or harmed by" a narcotic drug. Newborns cannot, medically speaking, be "addicted," though they can experience withdrawal symptoms. The Tennessee law is largely concerned with something known as "neonatal abstinence syndrome," (NAS) a possible (but not certain) side effect of prenatal exposure to opiates.
NAS can come from a pregnant woman's use of any opioid, including painkillers, heroin, or the "maintenance" drugs—such as methadone and Suboxone—used to minimize withdrawal symptoms in folks giving up painkillers and heroin. Abrupt discontinuation of these drugs in dependent women can pose more risk to a developing fetus than the drugs do. Though NAS is being branded as a horrific syndrome that will mark a child for life—much like the apocryphal "bio-underclass" of crack babies we were going to see—it can be readily treated without leading to any known long-term, adverse effects for a child.
"While NAS is being singled out and criminalized, there are other drivers of negative neonatal health outcomes that are far more damaging, such as cigarette smoking and poverty," said Whitney O'Neill Englander, government relations manager for the Harm Reduction Coalition. "The implications of singling out one condition over another and criminalizing it, without a basis in science or medicine, is very concerning."
A wide swath of mainstream medical groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Medical Association, object to tactics like Tennessee's, which they say will deter pregnant women from seeking prenatal care and/or addiction help. Policies that punish women for substance abuse during pregnancy are "contrary to the welfare of the mother and fetus," asserted ACOG in a committee opinion. "Incarceration and the threat of incarceration have proved to be ineffective in reducing the incidence of alcohol or drug abuse."
Around the same time as Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam was signing his state's misguided new law, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Sara Hicks, charged for giving birth to a healthy baby who tested positive for cocaine.
Under Alabama's "chemical endangerment" law, passed in 2006, people are prohibited from exposing children to a controlled substance. The law was intended to keep people from bringing children to meth labs. But it's been used more than 100 times since its passage to prosecute women who use drugs while pregnant.
Alabama courts have continually held that the meaning of the word "child" in the law unambiguously includes fertilized eggs. The Supreme Court upheld this interpretation 8-1, with Chief Justice Roy Moore writing a separate concurring opinion "to emphasize that the inalienable right to life is a gift of God that civil government must secure for all persons," born and unborn:
Legal recognition of the unborn as members of the human family derives ultimately from the laws of nature and of nature's God, Who created human life in His image and protected it with the commandment: 'Thou shalt not kill.'
Chief Justice Moore went on to compare courts that uphold established abortion laws to Nazi war criminals.
Justice Tom Parker also wrote a separate opinion to emphasize Alabama's stance on the inalienable rights of the unborn, which apply "to life at every point in time and in every respect," including "a life free from harmful effects of chemicals at all stages of development." This, he notes, is what makes Alabama a "refuge" for liberty.
These justices had already ruled on a similar case, and it's "very unusual for a state supreme court to take a case to address a settled issue of law," said Lynn Paltrow, founder and executive director of NAPW. "It appears that the court accepted the Hicks case for the purpose of more fully articulating a view that pregnant women are proper subjects of Alabama's criminal justice system and a growing state and national system of mass incarceration."
They are, indeed. In Utah, a 24-year-old woman was recently charged with second degree felony child endangerment after giving birth to a child at 39 weeks—40 weeks is considered full term—and admitting that she had used meth several times during pregnancy. In Texas, women who smoke marijuana while pregnant can be charged with "delivery of a controlled substance to a minor," a second-degree felony punishable by two to 20 years incarceration. Ohio lawmakers are seeking to add extra penalties for selling drugs to a pregnant woman. And despite the now-legal status of marijuana in Colorado, using it while pregnant can still get you cited for child abuse.
abortion or prosecution??????
go ahead and pick.....who's liberty? who's freedom? oh wait let's not forget about those level 1 carcinogenic chemical birth controls....
so where is the fu(king sperm in all this???????????????????????
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
A woman has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Having a child often can severely limits those options. Having sex resulting in pregnancy changes your life priorities, it doesn't limit your life, liberty, or happiness. Unless that child can kill you, jail you, or control your emotions. Basically that baby has to be born a cop.
Logged
