Comments about ‘'Pain capable' abortion regulation makes waves in U.S. House’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, June 18 2013 11:45 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
IMAN
Marlborough, MA

More and more the GOP shows they really stand for nothing and are not interested in having a truly democratic republic as the founding fathers intended. Shame on the GOP and their supporter for this dog and pony show. Hopefully the GOP will take a beating in the 2014 elections.

EPJ
Grantsville, UT

"Dog and pony show"? This is about trying to save the lives of innocent unborn children.

It seems that in certain secular sectors of this mixed-up world, dogs and ponies have felony-level laws protecting them, yet gruesomely dismembered human babies are daily being swept off your floors and into the garbage, . . . and you find that acceptable?

JimInSLC
Salt Lake City, UT

I wonder if President Obama would agree with Nancy Pelosi on this topic? His biological father had pressured his mother to get an abortion. Had his mother done so, Barak would only be a memory of a traumatic event in an abortion clinic. Likely, a memory of an event that she would regret having done for the rest of her life.

Pelosi, says “All the people who voted for the bill were men. Disrespectful.” Since there are several women that cosponsored the bill, I suspect that her statement is not accurate.

Pelosi holds the rights of the woman's control of her body more sacred than the life in the womb? Wonder what the Pope's view is on that, being a practicing Catholic and all.

TRO
Cedar Hills, UT

“All the people who voted for the bill were men. Disrespectful.”

That is a lie. If there were one or two women who voted in favor, I would say she was inaccurate but there are 18 (if I didn't miss any) women who voted in favor of the bill.

Martha Roby, Alabama
Susan Brooks, Indiana
Jackie Walorski, Indiana
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida
Lynn Jenkins, Kansas
Candice Miller, Michigan
Michele Bachmann, Minnesota
Vicky Hartzler, Missouri
Ann Wagner, Missouri
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Kristi Noem, South Dakota
Diane Black, Tennessee
Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee
Kay Granger, Texas
Jaime Herrera Beutler, Washington
Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Shelley Capito, West Virginia
Cynthia Lummis, Wyoming

hermounts
Pleasanton, CA

Nancy Pelosi says this bill is "disrespectful to the rights of women>" this is a circular argument, since it assumes, without saying so, that a woman's rights include the right to do this to her unborn child. And, need i point out that roughly half the unborn children aborted on any given day would have grown up to be women?

Riverton Cougar
Riverton, UT

How dare those evil Republicans have sanctity for life. How dare we let them put forth regulations that bans the killing of the most innocent people imaginable. These Democrats are right; these unborn children should not be given more rights than mere farm animals! It's selfish of Republicans to think of unborn children as human beings, even though they have human hearts, brains, lungs, hands, feet, etc. They don't have a right to live.

What we should do is not only legalize this practice of keeping these so-called "humans"; from being born, we should take measures to promote and fund it. Who's with me?

Disclaimer: I do not actually believe what I wrote; it's called sarcasm.

Lightbearer
Brigham City, UT

It seems to me - but not just to me - that those who are never born are the lucky ones:

Ecclesiastes 4 (NET Bible translation)

1 So I again considered all the oppression that continually occurs on earth. This is what I saw:

The oppressed were in tears, but no one was comforting them; no one delivers them from the power of their oppressors.

2 So I considered those who are dead and gone more fortunate than those who are still alive.

3 But better than both is the one who has not been born and has not seen the evil things that are done on earth.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@riverton cougar

Not sure how may last comment violated the DN rules but lets try it this way.

riverton cougar, your argument would be very compelling if we all agreed with your definition of when life begins, that however is not the case.

Hopefully that was not to harsh, if so I apologize.

Riverton Cougar
Riverton, UT

Scoundrel,

"I'm still waiting for the day when the GOP will praise and advocate the efforts at making birth control available to any and all women who want and/or need it."

The thing is that the GOP has their sights set higher than preventing unwanted pregnancies. We should do what we can to discourage immoral behavior (I'm assuming these high school students are not yet married-- a wild assumption, I know). We should teach that there are methods of birth control, but abstinence has proven to be the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Have you found a better method than that?

JSB
Sugar City, ID

From a biological perspective, abortion is a form of child abuse or worse. People who are “pro-choice” do not address the fact that biologically, a zygote is still a human being, it has 46 human chromosomes (23 from the father and 23 from the mother) and carries human DNA. If it isn't a human being, what is it? The developing child is dependent on the mother for survival and biologically and psychologically, the mother is forming a strong mother/child bond from the moment of conception. Women who miscarry often feel a sense of loss and become depressed. For women who have abortions, the psychological and emotional trauma is far more severe. With the exception of threat to the mother's life or health, if a human female takes the life of her own offspring, no matter what the stage of development, why is that not considered murder?

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

So we see from riverton, that it's really about punishing the wicked more than prevention.
Right now I'm teaching my dog and cat abstinence, I'm sure it will work great!

This bill will go nowhere except in the campaign speeches of republicans who need to say they did something about abortion, again, even if it really is just politicians starting to campaign already.

To bad the Dnews didn't print the Michael Burgess R- TX had to say.

Riverton Cougar
Riverton, UT

"So we see from riverton, that it's really about punishing the wicked more than prevention."

Teaching abstinence is punishing the wicked? You liberals have a very funny sense of logic.

Unless, you mean that banning late-term abortion punishes the wicked who were immoral and get pregnant. In that case, there are two options: 1) punish the "wicked" girl who got pregnant "with a baby", according to Obama, and having her go through the painful experiences of pregnancy and labor/delivery, or 2) punish the unborn child by denying him/her life and the right to live, or in other words, murder.

So yes, somebody is getting "punished" by these bans. However, it is better to have a woman go through pregnancy than to have a baby murdered as a result. You seem more concerned about the "rights" of the mother than the rights of the baby.

Thanks to JSB, I don't have to answer spring street's comment. JSB sufficiently explains that human life begins before birth.

The Deuce
Livermore, CA

It seems that most who have posted here have lost all sense of reason. Let's think this one through. A woman gets pregant. What ever the situation is of the woman, she has a number of options that come to her immediately. Within the first month (4-weeks), the woman has a great deal of time to decide how she wants to move forward. Why does it take anyone 4 months to figure this out. It seems to me that she should have been thinking about this before she became pregnant. I know, this bothers everyone that I would suggest that someone think about their actions before doing something that has consequences. There are times when abortion makes sense. There are many and real situations that support this. But when Nancy Pelosi gets up and says this is against a woman's rights, by her statement alone, she has stepped in deep mud with her reference to only men voting for this. Life is not a free-for-all where anything goes. There are consequences that need to be thought out before acting. Simply think this through before you act on your impulses.

Evelyn Candland
Danville/Contra Costa, CA

Nancy Pelosi is telling a flat out lie. There were at least 14 women who voted for the bill.

Lightbearer
Brigham City, UT

Pelosi didn't lie. When she said that only men voted for the bill, she was referring to its passage on June 12 in the Judiciary Committee. She made the statement on June 13. The House of Representatives didn't pass the bill till June 18.

JSB
Sugar City, ID

Re. Spring Street. If the zygote, embryo, fetus, neonate, infant, child, adolescent, young adult, adult, geezer, is metabolizing, it is alive. Why do some people have such a hard time grasping such a simple biological fact? If you don't agree, at what point in human development is the result of the union of the sperm and egg, not alive?

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@jsb and riverton

Actually the "fact" s science makes no claim as to when life begins, the fact is that it is purely a pyhisophical and theological debate.

Riverton Cougar
Riverton, UT

What is the difference between a baby after it comes out of the womb and shortly before?

Let's compare this with birthdays. Let's say a child is 4 years old, going on 5. His birthday is tomorrow. Now we all know that 5-year-old kids have much better muscle and cognitive control than 4-year-old kids, but it would be silly to assume that tomorrow he will suddenly acquire these characteristics in one day merely by going from being a 4-year-old to a 5-year-old.

Likewise there is little difference in a newborn and a not-yet-born child when it comes to their status as a living being. Actually, babies are alive in the womb shortly after conception. There are differences, but the fact that the baby is alive remains. We might as well kill the child when it comes out of the womb; as far as the act of killing goes, there is no difference.

The Deuce says it very well: late-term abortions are unnecessary, since the mother had plenty of time to think. The exception should be mother's life at risk (only about 1% of all abortions, by the way).

very concerned
Sandy, UT

@Happy Valley Heretic

*Right now I'm teaching my dog and cat abstinence, , I'm sure it will work great!* Your comments seem to be against teaching abstinence, as if it would do no good.

I submit we are not dogs and cats. In the worldly vernacular, we are at the top of the food chain. In a religious sense, we are free to act on our consciences. Our moral agency separates us from canines and felines.

What is the constitution but a great document championing moral agency. Music, laws, arts, sciences, ethics, philosophy, healing arts, etc. separate us from animals. We should all be capable of understanding abstinence. Understanding that it works.

Unless you really do not believe in God nor moral agency. If that is the case, then I guess I can understand your comparison to animals. But I believe we have a more going for us than pure animal instinct. That somehow we are capable of making moral decisions as no non-human *animal* can.

to comment

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