Just when you think the Republicans can't lose....Abortion bill

[sniper7]

If you guys want to make it a little easier to accept, it is typically liberals/democrats that will have abortions. So we got that going for us!

but I'm with asmo don't like it, don't have one. As long as my tax dollars aren't paying for them. They are going to be performed whether they are legal or not. Might as well get over it.

[Ronin13]

Of course the major crux of the argument is at what point is something alive? Is it when there is an independent heart beat? How about brain functions? Sure fetal development is reliant upon the mother while developing in the womb, but what about 24, 25, and 26 week born alive abortions? Had they not been "terminated" (such a callous and cold word) they might have had a chance to survive, even that premature. Is it murder if the child is aborted and lives outside the mother? What about the sick and depraved and inhuman things done at the Gosnell clinic? The real question is, where do we draw the line? Granted, I don't agree with abortion, I do not approve of it, and while I inwardly judge women who have abortions unfavorably (x10 for those who constantly use it as a method of contraception) it is also not my decision to make, nor is it my place to say what a person can and can't do. HOWEVER, my morals and beliefs dictate that I believe a child is alive somewhere between heartbeat and brain function, and is their own individual in the early stages of pregnancy- well into the threshold that many states allow an abortion to take place. We don't need more laws, but my personal beliefs, despite what the law on this states (and only in this instance, so don't go building straw men or diverting from my point), abortion is, without question, murder. The unjustified termination of another's right to live. Just because the child hasn't fully developed yet, doesn't make it any less ugly, in my opinion. Of course, what they're doing in Europe to the elderly is quite a similar instance.

[kawiracer14]

The original point is that you aren't winning over any moderates or undecideds by bringing up these bills. You're pushing them to the other party. Republican's ain't winning elections with this bullshit.

[mountainjenny]

For most women I know abortion is thier single issue vote. They will not even consider a candidate if they are not pro-choice.

This would be the women in my family as I don't really have any female friends. If I did they would probably vote gun rights as a single issue, like me.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

Of course the major crux of the argument is at what point is something alive? Is it when there is an independent heart beat? How about brain functions? Sure fetal development is reliant upon the mother while developing in the womb, but what about 24, 25, and 26 week born alive abortions? Had they not been "terminated" (such a callous and cold word) they might have had a chance to survive, even that premature.

Even younger than that, Ronin, when I was working in a NICU, and that was > 10 years ago. I think ~22 was what I saw as the extreme cases surviving. Almost half of gestation only. We're going to keep moving that "threshold" forward as medicine advances. And this is why I don't like some sort of a gestational threshold. So, yeah, where do we draw the line.

It is either right or wrong. But that's not what matters to those in favor of it.

[buffalobo]

The original point is that you aren't winning over any moderates or undecideds by bringing up these bills. You're pushing them to the other party. Republican's ain't winning elections with this bullshit.

Back on topic.

So has anybody called Rep Humphreys or Colorado GOP to ask about the strategy of introducing a bill the Rep knew was going no where?

In interview Humphreys stated he was acting in his constituents best interest, but not at their direction and that he did not even ask his constituents thoughts about the bill.

Maybe GOP should spend more time talking to constituents and put forth legislation that the constituency is aware of, supports and would be willing to act upon.

Lobbed from my electronic ball and chain.

[Aloha_Shooter]

My intellectual sympathies lie with preserving innocent life except in extreme cases but bills like this are so stupid politically that I wonder if they aren't being prompted by Democrats undercover, knowing this is exactly the kind of issue they need to bring their base back to the polls. Would Obama really have squeaked out Colorado in 2012 without Amendment 64 also on the books or the phony "war against women" campaign? Would Hickenlooper have won in 2010 without a similar anti-abortion amendment on the same ballot?

I wonder how the state GOP can be such a monolithic power structure as claimed and seen by many people but not shut down stupid legislative maneuvers that can only hurt them at the polls.

[Zundfolge]

I agree that the timing of this bill was stupid. But frankly Republicans could never bring up Abortion ever again and it would still be brought up by Democrats and used as a bludgeon every election.

Just look at the recall election. The ads running against Bernie Herpin and George Rivera basically said these two were all hot to trot to outlaw all forms of contraception despite the fact that neither had made any statements about abortion.


I would also argue that its not as cut and dried as many here would have you believe ... most folk act like the pro-life position is only 20% of the people and the pro-abortion position is 80%. Reality is its a lot closer.

[Dave]

[SvenJorgensen]

MichaelMoore MichaelMoore Michael Moore

The definition of sentience is subjective on your own personal or religious beliefs. Buddhists, Christians, and non-believers like Micheal Moore are bound to have a different opinion. And you're right about how do you "draw the line," or quantify, what the greatest good actually is. Quantifying it is a tough one because methods can be disputed, and this dissention is common against theories based upon utilitarian ethics. This specific topic though could be quantified on tax burden for example. Does an abortion-less society place a higher tax burden on it's citizens due to social institutions caring for children?

I'm not trying to get you to agree with me. Swaying someone's opinion on abortion certainly isn't going to happen here, but perhaps you can give me an honest perspective of where you're coming from without personal attacks.

Mahalo.

HOWEVER, my morals and beliefs dictate that I believe a child is alive somewhere between heartbeat and brain function, and is their own individual in the early stages of pregnancy- well into the threshold that many states allow an abortion to take place.

I totally agree with that definition of "alive," and I think that is one of the best method to possibly determine when an abortion becomes something more heinous. Perhaps I'm less sensitive though? I can justify it because we kill people every day, maybe not directly, but someone or something must subside for you to thrive. I'm definitely not for the careless or thoughtless use of abortion. If someone has had multiple abortions flags should be raised. Hell, I'd even be for a law limiting the number of abortions someone can have, but if it came down to something horrible like my daughter having a rapists baby or me having to pay for some crack-head's child, then I can justify an abortion without question. Religious beliefs and moral convictions out the window go out the window then. Not being able to have that choice because of an overbearing government is a scary prospect.