In response to:

Democrat Can't Explain Why He Wants to Legislate Women Into Being Victims

AmyDB Wrote: Mar 12, 2013 12:45 PM
UltraMan in response to your reasoned rebuttal my opinion is this. Now ours is a Nation wherein not one religion rules, no one Faith is preeminent over any other. There are almost as many views on when life begins within the womb as there are religions on the earth. Since the law of the land is that abortion is legal I work from that basis. However SCOTUS has also accepted certain restrictions on the procedure. Choice & responsibility working hand in hand a reasonable approach would be to allow abortions until a month before the accepted viability date. At this point in time viability is about 22 weeks.
DevinDenver Wrote: Mar 12, 2013 12:53 PM
Actually, Amy, SCOTUS has used rather tortured logic (invoking the Right to Privacy as a pretext) to come up with its ruling in this regard. One thing they did not even attempt to address is the issue of "when life begins". Many constitutional scholars have rightly opined that if a state were to enact some sort of "personhood" amendment (thereby codifying that life begins at a certain time), that would legally negate the "right to an abortion" in that particular state - at least to the extent it occurs after the point at which the state has determined the "person" exists.
AmyDB Wrote: Mar 12, 2013 12:51 PM
with as few abortions as possible being the end goal while still working within the framework of SCOTUS & Roe V. Wade I believe that outlawing abortions past week 18 would be a compromise that many could stomach. The only exception would be gross physical issues with the fetus or extreme life threat to the mother. In the latter case the fetus should be saved if possible.

In all cases except rape, incest, or urgent threat to the mother the woman should have to have full & total knowledge of the procedure including hearing the fetal heartbeat & seeing a sonogram.
Joseph64 Wrote: Mar 12, 2013 1:08 PM
Why exceptions in the case of rape or incest? It is not the fault of the fetus how it was conceived, why should the fetus be made to suffer the consequences?
DSMike Wrote: Mar 12, 2013 12:48 PM
Religion aside there is no difference in genetics at birth or at contraception, therefore we are talking not of a substantial difference but rather one of form.

Last night in Northern Virginia, Democratic Rep. Jim Moran held a public "conversation about gun violence." Moran respesents Virginia's 8th congressional district. Celia Bigelow, the former campus action director for American Majority Action, asked Moran why he felt it was appropriate to legislate women into being victims. Bigelow specifically referred to the story of Amanda Collins who said she was "legislated into being a victim" by university bureaucrats. Collins was raped on campus in a gun free zone at gun point. At the time of the attack, Collins was in possession of her concealed carry permit, but not her...