Comments about ‘Trio of anti-abortion bills pass Utah House’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, March 7 2011 6:54 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Considering
Stockton, UT

I appreciate Rep. Wimmer and the legislature passing these bills. Contrary to popular belief, Roe v. Wade did not give carte blanche to elective abortions on demand. In addition, subsequent rulings have allowed additional limits including on partial birth abortion.

As much as some people may not like this fact, Utah is overwhelming pro-life. Our laws should impose as many restrictions on elective abortions of convenience as can possible pass SCOTUS muster.

California and NY and Massachusetts will certainly go the other way and be as permissive on abortions as the courts and federal law will possibly allow. That isn't going to change because the pro-life minority in those States don't like it.

The pro-abortion minority in our State should not expect the majority to cow-tow to their wishes any more than the majority in Cali or other liberal strong holds concede to conservative desires.

Heidi71
Kearns, UT

I love this year's congressional session. It is the best ever!

blue dot!
Eagle Mountain, UT

One group telling another group what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

If you want to return to the days of back alley and dangerous abortion black markets, just continue to persecute those who practice in the light of day and according to federal law.

If you believe that it's ok for others to tell you how to live in accordance with their views, beliefs and religious convictions, then this type of legislation should feel warm and cozy.

coleman51
Orem, UT

It appears that the person identified as blue dot appears as a pro-choice Democrat. Once again, the most extreme examples were offered to base their justification for unlimited abortions appealing to one's emotions rather than facts. I suppose that it is next to impossible to consider the body of the unborn infant to these people and that they are provided with negligible constitutional protection thanks to Roe vs. Wade. Any woman who voluntarily conceives a child gives up part of her choice for the protection of that unborn and innocent child in her womb. The state has every legal right to protect that child. Any woman with a moral center would do all she can to protect that unborn child as well.

blue dot!
Eagle Mountain, UT

And if the woman did not conceive by choice?

I do not agree with abortion, but I defended this nation in uniform to defend the right to choose, not just in this subject but all manner of debate.

If Utah persecutes doctors and facilities that perform abortions according to the regulations of the law of this land, who will be there for the cases involving rape, incest or personal danger?

You?

blue dot!
Eagle Mountain, UT

And if the woman did not conceive by choice?

I do not agree with abortion, but I defended this nation in uniform to defend the right to choose, not just in this subject but all manner of debate.

If Utah persecutes doctors and facilities that perform abortions according to the regulations of the law of this land, who will be there for the cases involving rape, incest or personal danger?

You?

George
Bronx, NY

@coleman51
I noticed you are able to see the faults in blue dots appeal to emotions. I am curious if you can turn that same light on your own appeal to emotions when you use terms such as unborn and innocent child? While this my be how you feel the fetus should be referred to it is no less an emotional appeal then blue dots argument. I have noticed people on these threads are quick to stand up straw man characterize of th other side and attempt to knock them down while failing to see their own blind spots (see considerings post from yesterday on the same subject). I agree with your basic premise however it would be nice to have an honest discussion based on reality rather then people drawing these false characters of each other and going on the attack but every time I have let myself believe it is possible I have been let down.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Carl Wimmer has a plan to return America back to the old west every one of his bills is a step backwards.

And if the unborn are innocent why is it ok to abort them in the case of rape?
Isn't that blaming the child for the actions of the father?
Why are the mother's "emotions" taken into consideration for rape but not for other mentally distressing situations?
Why should we let the life of the mother come into play, isn't that choosing to kill a child still? (according to your logic?
Seems highly hypocritical.

coleman51
Orem, UT

Apparently I have stirred up some emotion regarding the issue of abortion. I was careful to state in my previous comment that any woman who voluntarily conceives a child gives up part of her choice to the protection of that child. In cases of rape, incest, or endangerment of the life of the mother these are serious mitigating circumstances that one might consider in electing to abort an unborn infant. This should still weigh heavily on the part of the mother that she is still destroying a life. As far as elective abortions outside of those circumstances, over 40 million abortions are performed worldwide every year. In New York, 60 percent of all conceptions among black mothers are aborted, and 50 percent of all Hispanic mothers. There is no argument that the vast majority of these abortions are chosen and encouraged to be performed when no incest, rape, or mother's endangerment is involved. As I said before, any woman with a moral center would do all she could to protect that child.

George
Bronx, NY

@coleman51
again you point out others emotional response and fail to take responsibility for your own emotional appeals by insisting on using the emotionally charged referral of the fetus (medical term)as the "unborn infant" and "child."

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

As far as elective abortions outside of those circumstances, over 40 million abortions are performed worldwide every year.

We are talking about Utah laws, and how could you possible know how many of those were morally elective (by your definition) when in many parts of the world your religious values mean nothing and aren't asked or recored.

This is a lot of hype by those who wish to control others by any means possible.

Coleman said: In New York, 60 percent of all conceptions among black mothers are aborted, and 50 percent of all Hispanic mothers.
But republican politicians who won't teach sex ed and refuse to ask insurance companies to pay for birth control while paying for old men to have erection medication is the right direction?

blue dot!
Eagle Mountain, UT

@ Coleman51

"As I said before, any woman with a moral center would do all she could to protect that child."

Beware those who claim to possess the one true moral compass, and with it the authority to determine how others live.

Abortion is a hot button topic that elicits strong emotions and has extremely viable arguments on both sides. The key is to maintain balance, lest one side subdue the rights of the other.

Considering
Stockton, UT

"One group telling another group what they can and cannot do with their own bodies."

No. One group telling another group what it can or cannot do with the bodies of innocent third parties who are unable to speak for themselves.

The simple fact is that abortion involves more than just the mother's body. It involves the body (at whatever level of development it may be) of the unborn child. It involves the contribution of the father to that child's body.

To the extent that the unborn child is just a mass of cells rather than a living human being, it is just the mother's body in question and in that case an abortion is no different than having a tumor removed. But we all know that isn't really the case else why the desire for abortions to be "legal, safe, and rare"?? Nobody wants to see removal of cancer tumors to be "rare."

To the extent that the unborn child is a living human being, a civil society must at least consider his right to life against mere inconvenience of the mother.

Considering
Stockton, UT

It is telling that abortion supporters use the rare, and extreme cases of rape, incest, or unusually high risk to the life of the mother in order to justify keeping elective abortions on demand legal.

Fewer than 5% of all abortions in this nation are for causes of rape, incest, or serious risk to the life or health of the mother.

Only 12% of women seeking abortion who were not using contraceptives claimed that lack of access to contraceptives was the reason they had an unwanted pregnancy.

That leaves over 80% of abortions as purely elective, for convenience.

And half of all abortions in this nation are performed on women who have had at least one prior abortion. Can anyone claim with a straight face that such women don't know what causes pregnancy? Did the abortion doctor and nurses fail to explain that during the first abortion?

Utah has one of the lowest rates of unwed pregnancy in the nation despite or because of our sex ed programs so often attacked as insufficient.

It is clear that partisan rhetoric about sex ed, or access to contraceptives doesn't stand up to close numerical scrutiny.

Furry1993
Somewhere in Utah, UT

To Considering | 11:56 a.m. March 8, 2011

Why do you think that something which may, at some time, become a life-in-being should have more rights and more consideration given to it than someone who is an actual life in being (the pregnant woman)? Why would you force her to risk her life and her health and her personal well-being every second of every minute of every day in service to something that may, at some time, beome a life-in-being (and, whether or not you wish to consider the fact, there is no such thing as a benign or easy pregnancy - each and every pregnancy has the potential to maim or kill the pregnant woman without warning)? Why do you have such little concern for womankind that you would force her into involuntary servitude?

For the record, a fetus is not an unborn child, it is not an unborn baby, it is not an unborn person. It is the vehicle which will become a person when birth has occured and a breath has been taken, thereby evidencing the acceptance of the spirit of the vehicle in which it will spend mortality.

Considering
Stockton, UT

"a fetus is not an ... unborn person. It ... will become a person when birth has occured and a breath has been taken"

The courts do not share that view. Notice that limits on late term abortions have been upheld despite them occurring before the child is born. A crime that terminates a pregnancy is often charged as murder.

And at one time, blacks were not considered persons. That rhetoric matched yours.

If a child is not a person 2 minutes before being born, what is the magic in taking a breath of air that makes a child a person 2 minutes after birth. Is brain activity materially different? Body materially more formed? More capable of surviving on his own?

No, of course, not. So what is the material difference?

Nothing but ugly rhetoric.

"would you force her to risk her life and her health and her personal well-being .... in service to [her unborn baby]."

I wouldn't. Straw man argument. Life and health of the mother is a real concern in fewer than 5% of abortions. I support "choice" in such cases.

Why in the other 95% of cases would you subordinate LIFE to mere convenience?

coleman51
Orem, UT

The question of what constitutes a person can be very murky for those who feel a woman has the right to her own body and can do with it whatever she wishes. Just 15 days after a baby is conceived, there is a heart-beat. The question of elective abortion goes beyond what is legal, however. We are dealing with life. For those who question what side of the moral equation I would side with, then I will make myself clear. I side with life. I also see many young mothers doing all they can to protect the life of their infant, including the unborn infant. I side with these mothers who show a moral center by protecting life, whether unborn or born. If those who think that elective abortion under any circumstances is moral, then show me your justification.

George
Bronx, NY

@colmen51
The problem with your question is that you start with the assumption that everyone shares your view of the world that every decision must be based on a moral grounds with morals of course being based on the questioners assumptions of what is and is not moral. These trains of emotional reasoning bring us no closer to actually being able to have a rational discussion about the real people this issue effects and the real life consequences for them. It only serves to push your desire to narrow the conversation to a discussion about you narrow view of morals. My evidence? An entire day of discussion and not one step closer to any sign of being any closer to a common understanding.

coleman51
Orem, UT

George,
Then submit to me what you believe is moral, don't philosophize about it. The question is whether we as a society choose life or death. This isn't just my moral values, these are shared by people throughout the world. These questions are not relative. They are fundamental to our humanity.

George
Bronx, NY

Are you aware of just how any assumption you made? First the assumption that right and wrong can only be achieved through "morality" a false assumption that has been had to many times to count on these threads. Second that we all define life by your terms and third that your questions are not relative, to this last one I would submit any question no matter how rooted you may believe they maybe in your moral beliefs are relative to your understanding of morality. Again this is why the conversation always breaks down because people are unwilling to see that perhaps their view are not a universal truth but rather a truth for them. I am not against the reasonable guidelines that first evolved out of the supreme court decision that I think (my opinion not fact) is based in sound medicine, but again that is my opinion (also read bias) and certainly open for debate.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments