Republican-backed legislation bans abortion after 20 weeks in Minnesota

Full story: TwinCities.com

Does a fetus experience pain? That question, perhaps part science and part philosophy, is at the heart of a new push by Republican lawmakers to curtail abortions in Minnesota.
Comments
161 - 180 of 2,263 Comments Last updated Jun 28, 2011

Since: Jun 08

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#166
Mar 11, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Buttomfly wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would someone wait 20 weeks to abort a baby after a rape? Or worse yet incest? Why should a woman have to carry a baby that was conceived by being raped. What monster would wish that psychological damage on a woman who has already been victimized? No it's not the fetus's fault but then again, done before 16 weeks it is just that, a fetus.
A fetus is a living human being just like you were and still are.

What additional psychological damage will be done to a woman after she kills her own unborn child. There are to many women who have aborted and now feel ashamed and stress realizing that they killed another human being.

Rape = A wounded female
Abortion = A wounded female and a dead unborn child.
Adoption = A wounded female and a healthy child that will enjoy life and be thankful to the Mother who gave life.

“REUNITE GONDWANALAND!”

Since: Jun 08

Woodbury

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167
Mar 11, 2011
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Lux et Veritas wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's use a better verb: "Roe v Wade ...concocted a 'right', supposedly lurking in some murky recess of a penumbral emanation, to exterminate unborn human beings."
No wonder even pro-choice legal luminaries -- like John Hart Ely, the fourth most widely cited legal scholar in U.S. history, whose "Democracy and Distrust" is the most-cited book on law of the 20th Century.-- have regularly derided Blackmun's Folly.
"Joining the faculty of Yale Law School in 1968, and moving to Harvard Law School in 1973, Ely wrote several influential law review articles, including a highly critical analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade in an article entitled "The Wages of Crying Wolf," published in the Yale Law Journal, wherein he argued that the Court's decision protecting abortion rights was wrong: "Roe is a very bad decision. It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and almost gives no sense of an obligation to try to be."
Ely writes at one point, "Were I a legislator I would vote for a statute very much like the one the Court ends up drafting....What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers' thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure."
http://www.jstor.org/pss/795536 -- The Wages of Crying Wolf
Actually, that right to privacy was established by Griswold - why not quote a jurist who at least knows that?
RIOT

Madison, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#168
Mar 11, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

1

The 2010 election has given MnGOP legislators a 2-year window of opportunity to contaminate Minnesota statutory law and the state's Constitution with the tenents of their religious beliefs that they want to impose on every Minnesota resident. MnGOP political candidates pledged to focus on jobs and the economy if elected, but are now actively launching the party's Crusade to make their articles of religious faith state law.

Here is my response. Explain when there is a car accident and the mother loses her unborn child it is and can be called murder but if she went to the abortion clinic it is not.
RIOT

Madison, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169
Mar 11, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Here's another question. Where are the fathers rights in any of this? We have women who will lie to men that they cannot get pregnant. Then great news they are pregnant. These men do not want to have children but now have no choice because the woman wants the child. At the same time you might have a man who wants a child desperately but the woman doesn't so she just cuts it out.
No matter what this is a lose lose situation. We have to come to terms that no one likes it, it is not a pleasant part of our society.

Since: Jun 08

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170
Mar 11, 2011
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Darwinian wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep your religion out of our secular laws.
Darwinian, you should also keep your religion out of our secular laws.
Darwinian wrote:
You may not be aware, but there are religions that allow abortions to preserve both the physical and the mental health of the woman.
Yes, we know legally you can kill your unborn child anytime before birth. Legally but morally evil.
woodtick

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171
Mar 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

Here's some fun!
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
woodtick

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172
Mar 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

Sorry, wrong page...

“Unborn babies are people too”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173
Mar 11, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Darwinian wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, that right to privacy was established by Griswold - why not quote a jurist who at least knows that?
Of course he knew it. Ely's "The Wages of Crying Wolf" comments on the extraconstitutional transmogrification of a -- putative and gossamer, Ely argues -- "right to privacy" into a whole-cloth-created right to kill the unborn. Ely further says that were he a legislator, he'd vote for Roe-like legislation, the arena in which such decisions had been rightfully made until Roe's usurpation.

"... the most devastating critique Ely offers of the Roe ruling pertains to its constitutional grounding. As Blackmun himself acknowledges, the Roe decision maintains that privacy is observed in the corners of the Constitution, its 'penumbras.' That is to say the right of privacy is not delineated in the Constitution; in fact, the phrase does not even exist there. Blackmun and his colleagues argue that privacy exists within the shadows of the Constitution, so thoroughly a piece of American governance that it did not require mention in our founding document. For Ely, and others after him opposed to Roe, this is a damning observation that the right of privacy hangs on a constitutional thread."

But Ely's only the fourth most widely cited legal scholar in U.S. history and author of the most-cited law book in the 20th century. What would he know compared to the legal-eagle denizens of Topix?

Since: Feb 11

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174
Mar 11, 2011
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Thomas F Schraad wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwinian, you should also keep your religion out of our secular laws.
<quoted text>
Yes, we know legally you can kill your unborn child anytime before birth. Legally but morally evil.
I'm not sure how you managed to pack so much industrial-strength stupidity into such a short post... the whole definition of the word secular denotes a lack of religion; as our government is, in every respect, secular, your first statement is utterly nonsensical.

Furthermore, I wish you people would stop the nonsense that you care anything at all for these unwanted pregnancies - all you are up to is trying to force government into punishing women and girls for having the audacity to have sex for pleasure. That's it - nothing more... a bunch of holier-than-thou busybody fascists trying to impose their outdated dogma upon non-believers. At least have the testicular fortitude to admit it.

Since: Feb 11

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176
Mar 11, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Darwinian wrote:
<quoted text>
Unlike most people, I actually have saved the lives of many babies - and I support a woman's right to make decisions about her own health care and her own body.
Most people honestly don't understand what's at stake in this issue. Late term abortions are often the desperate last choice for women carrying terminal pregnancies and babies with anomalies not compatible with life. Taking away the option of ending a heartbreaking pregnancy safely and with dignity is inhumane and disgusting. Here, for example, is a real life story, told by a real woman about an all too real situation women can face:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/2011...
You'll have to post this again later, when someone is actually available at Tank's place to read it to him.

“REUNITE GONDWANALAND!”

Since: Jun 08

Woodbury

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178
Mar 11, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Thomas F Schraad wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwinian, you should also keep your religion out of our secular laws.
<quoted text>
Yes, we know legally you can kill your unborn child anytime before birth. Legally but morally evil.
Thomas, I am an Atheist, I have NO religious beliefs; since our laws and our Constitution are secular, there is no conflict with my Atheism.
And no, you cannot legally kill a fetus at any time before birth - there has to be a good reason, such as preserving the life or health of the mother, or fetal anomalies incompatible with life, to abort a fetus after viability. You do your side no good when you distort the opposite position.

“Unborn babies are people too”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179
Mar 11, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Darwinian wrote:
<quoted text>

And no, you cannot legally kill a fetus at any time before birth - there has to be a good reason, such as preserving the life or health of the mother, or fetal anomalies incompatible with life, to abort a fetus after viability. You do your side no good when you distort the opposite position.
In a number of states, you can, that cynically disingenuous Big Abortion talking point notwithstanding.

[ http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/s... -- Overview of state abortion laws] "Gestational Limits: 38 states prohibit abortions, generally except when necessary to protect the woman’s life or health, after a specified point in pregnancy, most often fetal viability."

And the devil's in the Doe v Bolton definition of "health":

"[ In Doe v Bolton] The Court defined health as "all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age – relevant to the well-being of the patient." This health exception expanded the right to abortion for any reason through all three trimesters of pregnancy.

"This definition is so broad and encompassing that it allows for wrong timing, marital status, fear of pain, too many children, weight gain, etc., as "health" reasons. Because of Doe, any reason for abortion can be construed as a health reason. Together with Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton allows abortion for any reason and at any time during the pregnancy."

Anyone want to drive a semi truck through Doe v Bolton's "well-being of the patient" phrase?

Late-term abortionist Warren Hern certainly did: "I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman's life and could cause 'grievous injury' to her 'physical health'."

Since: Feb 11

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180
Mar 11, 2011
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Jeffrey MacDonald wrote:
<quoted text>
secular????
yea that is why Churches are expanding like jack rabbits in America and thru the burbs, and 92% of americans believe in a higher power according to the Washington Post.
"In God we Trust"
More classic logical fallacies from the holier-than-thou religious fascists; argumentum ad populum, based on outdated data.

(Besides, I don't know that claiming you're one of the psychotically deluded masses, proclaiming your absolute lack of critical thinking skills, and showing your abject ignorance to the whole world, professing your belief in an invisible magical pixie dust fairy, is anything to be proud of.)

In FSM we Trust.

Since: Feb 11

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181
Mar 11, 2011
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Pablo wrote:
<quoted text>
Even though I am pro-life and Catholic, I don't think religion should be used in the debate over abortion. That being said, I still find abortion to be immoral and should be used only in limited circumstances. While a fetus has not yet attained "personhood" there should be some recognition of fetal rights.
Roe v Wade has recognized limited fetal rights in its opinion. That is why states are free to prohibit abortions where the fetus is viable. Pro-lifers (like the abolitionists of the 19th century) are fighting to abolish an unjust practice by trying to get laws passed that recognize the fetus as an entity deserving of certain rights and protections.
...and you have every right to feel that. Here's how you can express that opinion...

DON'T HAVE AN ABORTION!!!

As long as you don't impose your belief on anyone else (i.e., forcing someone who is pregnant to carry that pregnancy to full term, against their wishes), there's no problem.

(Sorry to hear about your religious affliction; I, myself, am only a recovering catholic now.)

Since: Feb 11

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182
Mar 11, 2011
 

Judged:

5

4

2

monet wrote:
<quoted text>
One thing liberals and atheists overlook, in their desire to control everyone, is that public schools and government belong to all citizens of this nation.
To include, or to reject, is the perogative of each person, and to summarily order another to keep their mouth shut about their beliefs is something that only totalitarians are capable of.
Liberals are quite well recognized for their need for group mind and collective thinking, but this country was not founded on such principles. Only in an Orwellian world could this type of thinking exist.
Separation of church and state - it's not just a good idea, it's settled case law.
Kenyan Commie Dirtbag

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183
Mar 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

"Should fetuses should be able to file lawsuits against their mothers?" -- Bark Obama

Exclusive: Obama's lost law review article
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/127...

As president of the Harvard Law Review and a law professor in Chicago, Senator Barack Obama refined his legal thinking, but left a scant paper trail. His name doesn't appear on any legal scholarship.

But an unsigned — and previously unattributed — 1990 article unearthed by Politico offers a glimpse at Obama's views on abortion policy and the law during his student days, and provides a rare addition to his body of work.

The six-page summary, tucked into the third volume of the year's Harvard Law Review, considers the charged, if peripheral, question of whether fetuses should be able to file lawsuits against their mothers.
_________
woodtick

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184
Mar 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

Kenyan Commie Dirtbag wrote:
"Should fetuses should be able to file lawsuits against their mothers?" -- Bark Obama
Exclusive: Obama's lost law review article
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/127...
As president of the Harvard Law Review and a law professor in Chicago, Senator Barack Obama refined his legal thinking, but left a scant paper trail. His name doesn't appear on any legal scholarship.
But an unsigned — and previously unattributed — 1990 article unearthed by Politico offers a glimpse at Obama's views on abortion policy and the law during his student days, and provides a rare addition to his body of work.
The six-page summary, tucked into the third volume of the year's Harvard Law Review, considers the charged, if peripheral, question of whether fetuses should be able to file lawsuits against their mothers.
_________
And the article continues to say "it was a fairly standard example of the genre, an approving recap of an interesting - and quite mainstream -- state court verdict."
Wow. and entire article to say it all meant...Meh.
Henry Frapp

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185
Mar 11, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Darwinian wrote:
<quoted text>
I am talking about fetal anomalies that are INCOMPATIBLE with life, so, why bring in treatable conditions?
Until you have walked in the shoes of a woman whose pregnancy has gone terribly wrong, you cannot understand what that woman is going through.
If the baby will ie upon delivery AND rhe mother's life is in danger, abortion would be called for.

As to your second point, the same can be said about anyone, including you.

You have no idea what my experiences are. As it so hapoens I do have experience with a child born with a severe defect. That child is now being treated. But fewer and fewer children with the same condition are being treated because their mothers/fathers are choosing to kill their child instead of viqble treatment. Yes, I am judging them for doing such a horrific thing.
Henry Frapp

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186
Mar 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

Darwinian wrote:
<quoted text>
Thomas, I am an Atheist, I have NO religious beliefs; since our laws and our Constitution are secular, there is no conflict with my Atheism.
And no, you cannot legally kill a fetus at any time before birth - there has to be a good reason, such as preserving the life or health of the mother, or fetal anomalies incompatible with life, to abort a fetus after viability. You do your side no good when you distort the opposite position.
Wasn't the doctor in Kansas doing late-term abortions on demand? What was his name?
woodtick

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187
Mar 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

Henry Frapp wrote:
<quoted text>
Wasn't the doctor in Kansas doing late-term abortions on demand? What was his name?
No. No he was not.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••