Comments about ‘Utah lawmaker opposes cockfighting bill because abortion is legal’
What You May Have Missed
Most Popular
Across Site
In Utah
- Man charged with killing Ogden officer found...
- Provo couple killed in RV accident near St....
- Davis County honor student arrested in deaths...
- Steven Powell can't go back to his home,...
- Police were watching, listening to Josh and...
- Common Core State Standards attract...
- 'More questions than answers' as charges...
- Josh Powell made 'admission of guilt' in...
Most Commented
Across Site
In Utah
- Chaffetz not willing to take...
70 - Mia Love announces she's officially...
43 - Man charged with killing Ogden officer...
38 - S.L. draws up airport plans
33 - Couples registry gets preliminary nod...
29 - 'We're here to serve all boys,' Utah...
23 - Search for Susan Cox Powell is over,...
21 - Gov. Gary Herbert tells Washington...
17



It may be only a misdemeanor, but is cock-fighting really running rampant in Utah? Is this a solution that is looking for a problem? I can't remember the last time I saw a story in the DesNews about a cock-fighting ring being broken up.
‘Utah lawmaker opposes cockfighting bill because abortion is legal’
"In a state where we can still allow people to kill their babies, we want to make it a felony to let chickens fight for the purpose of which they were raised," said Sen. Allen Christensen, R-North Ogden.
..yet we allow people to go ahead and murder their unborn babies."
=============
This is so utterly over the top it's beyond ridiculous...
I suppose Sen Allen Christensen is also against eating eggs -- since that is what Utahns are doing with unborn "chicken babies".
Stagest reasoning ever. I appose the death penalty so i will vote against seat belt laws. Why not it makes about as much sense.
The Senator's reasoning may sound illogical, but I think he's trying to make a point: he's saying that the law should show at least as much concern for unborn children as for animals. It's hard to argue with that.
This is not the first time a state or national politician has used his vote to make a statement, especially when he knows his vote would not change the outcome. At least he had the courage to publicly reveal his rationale for his vote.
I am curious about the other 10 who voted against the measure that on its face appears to be reasonable.
For that matter, what was the motive for those who voted for it? Did any of them have ulterior motives for their vote, like I don't like this bill but it wouldn't look good to my constituents, or will this hinder or help my business if this does or does not pass?
We like to think of our representatives as pure in thought and deed but every vote is subject to conflicting ideas and pressure.
I'm just glad this guy is not from my 'part of town'.
Then again, I did have fruit loops for breakfast.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
— About comments