Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 2 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Nebraska Bill Would Make Killing An Abortion Provider Justifiable Homicide
7 years ago  ::  Feb 26, 2011 - 10:55PM #11
costrel
Posts: 6,227

And I'm ashamed to be from South Dakota. Politicians from South Dakota tried to get us to believe that this bill was supposed to focus on protecting an unborn child from domestic violence -- that is, from husbands and boyfriends and fathers trying to harm a woman so she would miscarry her baby -- but even our local South Dakota news understood that this was a sly attempt at legalizing and justifying the killing of abortion providers. The people of South Dakota have twice voted down bills that would have outlawed abortion, yet these damn politicians will not give up. It makes me realize that politicians are as useful and relevant as theologians debating the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 26, 2011 - 11:01PM #12
Roodog
Posts: 10,168

Feb 26, 2011 -- 4:58PM, mountain_man wrote:


This is nothing more than a political stunt. They know it  has absolutely no chance of passing. They do stuff like this go get votes. This is all part of their stated agenda; to get some kind of anti abortion bill passed and then have the Supreme Court review it. With the SC being packed with Right Wing extremists legislating from the bench, they might have a good chance of it being OKed.


Beware the Christian Taliban.





God, I hope you are wrong on this one,MM.


The last thing Right to Life needs is a John Brown.

For those who have faith, no explanation is neccessary.
For those who have no faith, no explanation is possible.

St. Thomas Aquinas

If one turns his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 27, 2011 - 12:55AM #13
mountain_man
Posts: 44,029

Feb 26, 2011 -- 11:01PM, Roodog wrote:

God, I hope you are wrong on this one,MM.


The last thing Right to Life needs is a John Brown.


Since these "right to life" people want to make it OK to kill someone then they really aren't all that keen on everyone's right to life. The anti choice, anti women, side already has several John Browns that have killed doctors and blown up womens health clinics. See how the Christian Taliban will work? They that agree with them will have the "right to life." Others are exterminated as their god requires.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.   Isaac Asimov
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 27, 2011 - 6:00AM #14
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,839

Feb 26, 2011 -- 10:55PM, costrel wrote:

And I'm ashamed to be from South Dakota. Politicians from South Dakota tried to get us to believe that this bill was supposed to focus on protecting an unborn child from domestic violence -- that is, from husbands and boyfriends and fathers trying to harm a woman so she would miscarry her baby -- but even our local South Dakota news understood that this was a sly attempt at legalizing and justifying the killing of abortion providers. The people of South Dakota have twice voted down bills that would have outlawed abortion, yet these damn politicians will not give up. It makes me realize that politicians are as useful and relevant as theologians debating the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin.


Actually, I think it's more a problem with the fact that so many voters are oblivious to what is going on in their state government.


However, both the Nebraska and S. Dakota bills may well be due to another frightening fact--that militant pro-lifers have gotten themselves elected and are now carrying out the mandate of their staunch supporters.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 27, 2011 - 7:58AM #15
costrel
Posts: 6,227

Feb 27, 2011 -- 6:00AM, DotNotInOz wrote:

Feb 26, 2011 -- 10:55PM, costrel wrote:

And I'm ashamed to be from South Dakota. Politicians from South Dakota tried to get us to believe that this bill was supposed to focus on protecting an unborn child from domestic violence -- that is, from husbands and boyfriends and fathers trying to harm a woman so she would miscarry her baby -- but even our local South Dakota news understood that this was a sly attempt at legalizing and justifying the killing of abortion providers. The people of South Dakota have twice voted down bills that would have outlawed abortion, yet these damn politicians will not give up. It makes me realize that politicians are as useful and relevant as theologians debating the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin.


Actually, I think it's more a problem with the fact that so many voters are oblivious to what is going on in their state government.


However, both the Nebraska and S. Dakota bills may well be due to another frightening fact--that militant pro-lifers have gotten themselves elected and are now carrying out the mandate of their staunch supporters.


I do not doubt that militant pro-lifers have been elected. In fact, it seems as if even the local Democrats of South Dakota are pro-life rather than pro-choice. No politician appears to want to suffer the fate of South Dakota Senator Thomas Dascle, who claimed to be privately pro-life but politically pro-choice. His argument seems to have been that his private pro-life stance should not interfere with his politics, since abortion was legal and should remain legal (as not everyone in the democratic and pluralistic U.S. was pro-life). For this stance he came close to being formally excommunicated by the Catholic Church, and was then voted out of office and replaced by the pro-life politician John Thune, who is now even considering a run for the presidency. As South Dakota's Bishop Carlson wrote in a 2004 article in the Bishop's Bulletin in reference to Tom Dascle:


Today nominal Catholics are soft on abortion and badly misinformed about this and other aspects of the faith including the Eucharist and the proper formation of one's conscience. They fail to grasp the difference between the common good and excessive individual rights. [...] When a politician says, "I am personally opposed to abortion but don't want to impose my Catholic beliefs" or says something like, "You can't legislate morality," he or she fails the common good. As the bishops stated in "Faithful Citizenship," Catholics who bring their moral convictions into public life do not threaten democracy and pluralism, but rather enrich them and the nation. The separation of church and state does not require division between belief and public action, between moral principles and political choices, but rather protects the rights of believers and religious groups to practice their faith and act on their values in public life. [...] You cannot vote for a politician who is pro-abortion when you have a choice and remain a Catholic in good standing. For some Catholics this is a hard teaching, but I am simply repeating church teaching." -- For Bishop Carlson's entire article, please see www.ewtn.com/library/bishops/informfa.ht... 



According to Bishop Carlson, Catholic voters cannot remain in good standing if they willfully vote for a politician who is pro-choice, Catholic politicians must vote pro-choice, and the issue facing the nation is "excessive individual rights" versus "the common good." In addition, as you mentioned concerning voters not really knowing what is going on in state government, Carlson asserts that Catholics are also misinformed about the actual teachings of the Church.


Faced with this kind of opposition, it seems as if only non-Christians, ex-Catholics, ex-Christians, and atheists like myself have the luxury of being pro-choice these days, as we don't have to -- and are not expected to -- divorce personal conscience from how we vote and who we vote for. Thus, we do not have to deal with the problem of going against our consciences or remaining faithful to the Church and her teachings and voting according to how we are told to vote. Christian unbelievers can assert that "individual rights" ARE "the common good," that these individual rights are not "excessive," and can vote according to their consciences and not fear falling into mortal sin and displeasing Christ or his representatives on Earth.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 27, 2011 - 9:52AM #16
MSaraTemp
Posts: 800

Feb 26, 2011 -- 2:51PM, TPaine wrote:

When will the Christian Right learn that the Bible is not the supreme law of the land, the Constitution is. The Nebraska legislature is considering a bill by State Senator Mark Christensen that would consider killing to protect the life of a fetus justifiable homicide.

Last week, South Dakota's legislature shelved a bill, introduced by Republican state Rep. Phil Jensen, which would have allowed the use of the "justifiable homicide" defense for killings intended to prevent harm to a fetus. Now a nearly identical bill is being considered in neighboring Nebraska, where on Wednesday the state legislature held a hearing on the measure.


The legislation, LB 232, was introduced by state Sen. Mark Christensen, a devout Christian and die-hard abortion foe who is opposed to the prodedure even in the case of rape. Unlike its South Dakota counterpart, which would have allowed only a pregnant woman, her husband, her parents, or her children to commit "justifiable homicide" in defense of her fetus, the Nebraska bill would apply to any third party. Link to article Link to bill




But what about the "pregnant woman" herself?  --If she "miscarries" for instance.
Will she be "investigated" for suspicion of "embryo" or "fetal" homicide and be charged with a crime?

And what if the woman does want to terminate her pregnancy and gives permission to her HCP to perform an abortion, does the state still get to charge the woman with a crime under this bill?  Because after all, it's the woman who is the main instigator and not some mire accomplice in the act.


But in all seriousness, where do they grow these evil nitwits? --Something must be in the soil, the air & the water because since November 2010, there's been a particular bumper-crop that was harvested.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 27, 2011 - 11:07AM #17
Ebon
Posts: 10,148

Feb 26, 2011 -- 5:37PM, Hatman wrote:

What gets me is that in the misplaced zeal to protect the life of a fetus that has yet to draw a breath, they are attempting to invalidate the lives of the living who have drawn hundreds of thousands---if not millions---of breaths.  Whaddawanna bet that Mr. Inconsistency is also quite on-board with the death penalty, too?  "Protect the unborn!  Kill them once they're old enough to piss me off!"  With goodwill to all the People-  Hatman



Quite. It's the inconsistency that pisses me off. The Catholic church opposes abortion but they also oppose the death penalty and the majority of wars. I don't agree with it but I can respect that, it's an intellectually consistent stance. This, this is just playing games.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 27, 2011 - 11:27AM #18
REteach
Posts: 16,577

Too bad they don't give a rat's patootie about postborn kids. After they are here, too bad, so sad, fend for yourself.  Cut education, cut healthcare, forget about childcare.  

All they seem to care about is embryos and fetuses. Not independent living human beings.  

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 27, 2011 - 12:06PM #19
MSaraTemp
Posts: 800

Feb 27, 2011 -- 11:27AM, REteach wrote:

Too bad they don't give a rat's patootie about postborn kids. After they are here, too bad, so sad, fend for yourself.  Cut education, cut healthcare, forget about childcare.  

All they seem to care about is embryos and fetuses. Not independent living human beings.


Yet that too REt isn't true either.

Case in point: Op-Ed piece from NYTimes the other day.



Op-Ed Columnist

The G.O.P.’s Abandoned Babies





Republicans need to figure out where they stand on children’s welfare. They can’t be “pro-life” when the “child” is in the womb but indifferent when it’s in the world. Allow me to illustrate just how schizophrenic their position has become through the prism of premature babies.  . . . . .


..... The bad news is that, according to the March of Dimes, the Republican budget passed in the House this month could do great damage to this progress. The budget proposes:


$50 million in cuts to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant that “supports state-based prenatal care programs and services for children with special needs.”


$1 billion in cuts to programs at the National Institutes of Health that support “lifesaving biomedical research aimed at finding the causes and developing strategies for preventing preterm birth.”


• Nearly $1 billion in cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for its preventive health programs, including to its preterm birth studies.


This is the same budget in which House Republicans voted to strip all federal financing for Planned Parenthood.


It is savagely immoral and profoundly inconsistent to insist that women endure unwanted — and in some cases dangerous — pregnancies for the sake of “unborn children,” then eliminate financing designed to prevent those children from being delivered prematurely, rendering them the most fragile and vulnerable of newborns. How is this humane?


And it doesn’t even make economic sense. A 2006 study by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies estimated that premature births cost the country at least $26 billion a year. At that rate, reducing the number of premature births by just 10 percent would save thousands of babies and $2.6 billion — more than the proposed cuts to the programs listed, programs that also provide a wide variety of other services.


This type of budgetary policy is penny-wise and pound-foolish — and ultimately deadly.
Think about that the next time you hear Republican representatives tout their “pro-life” bona fides. Think about that the next time someone uses the heinous term “baby killer.”
www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/opinion/26blo...

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 27, 2011 - 12:16PM #20
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,750

If it's not justifiable homicide to kill someone in order to prevent a pregnant woman from being killed or harmed, why would it or should it be justifiable homicide to kill someone in order to prevent a fetus from being killed or harmed? 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook