Comments on: Utah Punishes Failed Mothers

By: guest

guest — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:09:28 +0000

105 makes no sense. 92 referred to it as a proposed bill. The other statute was cited for another purpose.
Amazing, how someone uses schoolhouse rock to smack someone else down, and then posts a sockpuppet comment crowing over it, and is sitll wrong.

By: guest

guest — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:21:26 +0000

Haha holy shit 93 just got owned!!! That is flat-out embarrassing to make such a shitty argument a person can use Schoolhouse Rock to effectively rebut it.
EPIC FAIL

By: guest

guest — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:16:20 +0000

92-
Are you seriously that stupid? This is a bill. It has not been signed by the governor. It is not codified yet. Even if it was signed into law, it would probably be in the session laws report until this year’s legislative session ended, when it would then receive a number and become codified. Please see the following if you’re confused as to how a bill becomes a law:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ
This bill, see supra, “criminaliz[es] a woman’s “intentional, knowing, or reckless act” leading to a pregnancy’s illegal termination.” Not any termination; rather, an illegal termination–one not justified by law or excused by mistake.
Why you have directed us to Utah’s criminal homicide statute and loudly proclaimed your superiority in legal research and reasoning is beyond me. Maybe in your special world, that actually counts as a valid argument; good luck in front of a judge and jury.
Please post your bar number and personal information immediately so no poor, unsuspecting bastard actually hires you to provide them with legal services.
XOXO

By: guest

guest — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:04:05 +0000

103,
Yes, because they make him a big fat hypocrite. He demonizes people who are addicts, stereotypes their race and their politics, but his drug addiction is somehow different and special and doesn’t make him into a bad person. Calling what he had to say about drug use “advice” is highly inaccurate.

By: guest

guest — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:29:07 +0000

102 – Limbaugh was never “Mr. Anti-Drug.” He has rarely talked about drug use at all. Which you’d know if you listened to his show.
In any event, if Limbaugh said that it was a bad idea to do drugs, would his problems with pain killers affect the validity of his advice?

By: guest

guest — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:07:06 +0000

What’s next .. join the Taliban .. force women to wear the burka. This law hopefully won’t stand the test of time … but before it goes down .. many women will be will be unjustly caught in it’s web.
As per my user name, I am one of eleven children born to a women who wasn’t allowed to have her tubes tied without her husbands signature until she had 9 living children (2 of the 11 died) – the results put her in an early grave.
For those who tout birth control – they are not 100% effective I have one of those children and so does my daughter — we chose to bear those children.
I love the preachers of do-good. They are daily paraded across the TV screen. They make & tout the rules and then place themselves above it. Ask Edwards, minister Baker, Jones etc. It’s the poor that are caught in the web of laws .. the rich can afford to do as they please. Rush Limbaugh is a great example of that .. you know Mr Anti-Drug until he got caught for prescription mis-use.
My last thought – I wonder how Utah would treat Jaycee Dugard ?

By: guest

guest — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 10:56:30 +0000

99-100,
Google a freakin’ molar or partial molar pregnancy. They are conceptions gone horribly awry, that can become tumors but can never become humans. Even though they have their own separate (flawed) DNA. But partial molar pregnancies can and do have heart beats. That’s why using a heart beat as the sine qua non of “it’s human” is idiotic. Also look up–either in your biology textbook or online “fetus in fetu.” Another example of something with independent DNA that will never grown into an adult human.

By: guest

guest — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 07:47:57 +0000

Read a freaking Biology textbook.
If looked at the DNA of two sets of cells – one from a born person and one from a fetus, the DNA would be indistinguishable (for the most part, I realize few people have identical DNA). They’re both completely human and you can only guess the age by amount of damage to their DNA… even then, it’s a guess.
So, if they’re a human, at what point do they become a person? ‘Personhood’ cannot be established by science because ‘personhood’ is a philosophical question. Science defining matters of philosophy is as bad as philosophers defining matters of science.
Sure, heartbeats have been detected in tumors – did that tumor actually have its own distinct heart with its own distinct blood type running through it? Argue apples to apples. Tumors do not have a distinct set of DNA, a distinct set of organs, and can only *ever* function parasitically. Yeah, children require a lot, but I defy anyone to call children (or fetuses) parasites. (No one’s actually said that a fetus is a parasite, but it’s intimated by comparing them to a tumor.)
The only valid question to ask is: Should the rights of one human supersede the rights of another human because the latter depends utterly on the former? Some say yes, some say no.

By: guest

guest — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 07:47:18 +0000

By: guest

guest — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:52:29 +0000

97,
My sister’s partial molar pregnancy had a heartbeat. That’s right–cells that could be cancerous but never a baby had a heartbeat.
Once they can live on their own, fine. But when they are feeding on our bodies, and imperiling our health (and all pregnancies are hard on your health–increasing your blood volume by 10% in the first trimester alone, the effects on your immune system of carrying foreign tissue, and I could go on, are not minor things) then whether we take a pill or it just stops growing, that is not the loss of a human life. No human culture has ever treated embryos and fetuses as full people. Because they aren’t. With luck, and if the mother’s body is capable of maintaining the pregnancy, they become humans, but without luck, they either stop growing or the mother’s body can no longer sustain their growth. There is no difference between being unable to sustain the embryo or fetus, or choosing not to. We don’t mourn miscarriages at all, nor do we spend any significant research dollars understanding them. As such, mourning abortions of the non-spontaneous sort is pure hypocrisy. We value embryonic life only when to do so is to exert control over women.