SE1- The Anti Minor Death Act (canceled)

[Blair]

Again, as I've said for the fourth time this bill is deeply flawed as it allows anyone to adopt a child-even if you're as pro life as possible you can't support a bill that's this badly written

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, as I've said many times this is a regressive law and goes against every single trend in the last 50 years. Societies moved on the 1950's when woman were treated as second class citizens, where woman were refused divorces, when the pill was illegal and were society simply wasn't equal. There's a clear correlation between the countries that have banned abortion, and those countries that limit female ability.

This bill will simply push women towards backstreet abortion clinics. Just ask what is the 12 year old girl, raped by a family member suppose to do when she's pregnant? Is she suppose to carry that child for the 9 months? We've seen the recent case in Chile.

The worse thing is that we shouldn't even have to go to these extreme cases to discuss abortion-it should be about the simple fact that it's a woman's private choice over her own body.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Yes, of course upon the passing of this law we should punish those who break it. But we should do that with an understanding of their reasoning. To me, the only logical conclusion is that abortion is wrong and it falls under the responsibilities of the government, even a dramatically limited one, to heavily restrict the practice. But many otherwise sane people see it differently, because they have a different view of when life begins.

Thank-you, Mr. Governor, for acknowledging the complexities of this issue. Placing doctors who perform abortions on the same level as O.J. Simpson and Jack the Ripper is sensationalism of the kind that belongs on a 3:00 AM talk radio show, not in the halls of our Regional governments. I would furthermore echo the comments of Governor Blair in calling on the Legislature to include exceptions for rape and incests to the blanket ban in Section 1.

[Leinad]

Again, as I've said for the fourth time this bill is deeply flawed as it allows anyone to adopt a child-even if you're as pro life as possible you can't support a bill that's this badly written

I agree that it should be heavily revised--as is it's not ready for a "final voting."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think there's a connection, per se. This isn't about divorce, or the pill, or equality, it's about giving these unborn children the opportunity to be born, grow up, and make their own choices as women or men themselves. There's nothing sexist about that. Maybe in your opinion it's misguided, but it's unfair to call it sexist without knowing the other person's motives. Just as unfair as it would be to call an abortion doctor a murderer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree that it would probably do that. The only way to truly stop abortion is within the minds of the people, where they make responsible decisions and don't get in a position to do that, and government can't do that. A cultural change is needed, not a legislative one.

BUT, at the same time, if you start with the premise that life begins at conception or close enough to it, abortion is the ending of that life, and thus within the proper role of government to restrict. While there may be unintended consequences, I don't think it's something we can just allow to keep happening.

Given the situation you put forward, I would agree that exceptions would be more than a sensible compromise. While I think those are lives, too, and I'd personally encourage someone not to abort, it's a horrific situation to be put in, and I can't bring myself to take the hard-line, absolutist stance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If it was nothing but a blob of tissue or another part of her body (like tonsils, or an extra tooth, or whatever) I'd agree, but I don't think it is. It's another person--to me, that's the most logical conclusion.

[Blair]

Again, as I've said for the fourth time this bill is deeply flawed as it allows anyone to adopt a child-even if you're as pro life as possible you can't support a bill that's this badly written

I agree that it should be heavily revised--as is it's not ready for a "final voting."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think there's a connection, per se. This isn't about divorce, or the pill, or equality, it's about giving these unborn children the opportunity to be born, grow up, and make their own choices as women or men themselves. There's nothing sexist about that. Maybe in your opinion it's misguided, but it's unfair to call it sexist without knowing the other person's motives. Just as unfair as it would be to call an abortion doctor a murderer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree that it would probably do that. The only way to truly stop abortion is within the minds of the people, where they make responsible decisions and don't get in a position to do that, and government can't do that. A cultural change is needed, not a legislative one.

BUT, at the same time, if you start with the premise that life begins at conception or close enough to it, abortion is the ending of that life, and thus within the proper role of government to restrict. While there may be unintended consequences, I don't think it's something we can just allow to keep happening.

Given the situation you put forward, I would agree that exceptions would be more than a sensible compromise. While I think those are lives, too, and I'd personally encourage someone not to abort, it's a horrific situation to be put in, and I can't bring myself to take the hard-line, absolutist stance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If it was nothing but a blob of tissue or another part of her body (like tonsils, or an extra tooth, or whatever) I'd agree, but I don't think it is. It's another person--to me, that's the most logical conclusion.

There is something in the fact that an entirely male legislative body is making decisions that impact upon women, and there right to have control over their own bodies. In the same way legislative bodies that didn't feature black, or LGBT citizens were more likely to provide a one sided view of social issues back in the 60's and 80's when both issues were important

 Fertility control is a fundamental function of any modern society-hence why issues such as the pill, divorce etc are of importance.

In debates like this there's the practical arguments-like the one above, then there's the moral argument. Naturally most supporters of abortion rights, like myself see the need for a limit because we follow the scientific evidence that an unborn child can survive after 22-28 weeks in the womb-that's why we have a cut off point. If you believe that life begins at conception (as this bill does) then you're not following the science

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

Again, as I've said for the fourth time this bill is deeply flawed as it allows anyone to adopt a child-even if you're as pro life as possible you can't support a bill that's this badly written

I agree that it should be heavily revised--as is it's not ready for a "final voting."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think there's a connection, per se. This isn't about divorce, or the pill, or equality, it's about giving these unborn children the opportunity to be born, grow up, and make their own choices as women or men themselves. There's nothing sexist about that. Maybe in your opinion it's misguided, but it's unfair to call it sexist without knowing the other person's motives. Just as unfair as it would be to call an abortion doctor a murderer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree that it would probably do that. The only way to truly stop abortion is within the minds of the people, where they make responsible decisions and don't get in a position to do that, and government can't do that. A cultural change is needed, not a legislative one.

BUT, at the same time, if you start with the premise that life begins at conception or close enough to it, abortion is the ending of that life, and thus within the proper role of government to restrict. While there may be unintended consequences, I don't think it's something we can just allow to keep happening.

Given the situation you put forward, I would agree that exceptions would be more than a sensible compromise. While I think those are lives, too, and I'd personally encourage someone not to abort, it's a horrific situation to be put in, and I can't bring myself to take the hard-line, absolutist stance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If it was nothing but a blob of tissue or another part of her body (like tonsils, or an extra tooth, or whatever) I'd agree, but I don't think it is. It's another person--to me, that's the most logical conclusion.

There is something in the fact that an entirely male legislative body is making decisions that impact upon women, and there right to have control over their own bodies. In the same way legislative bodies that didn't feature black, or LGBT citizens were more likely to provide a one sided view of social issues back in the 60's and 80's when both issues were important

 Fertility control is a fundamental function of any modern society-hence why issues such as the pill, divorce etc are of importance.

In debates like this there's the practical arguments-like the one above, then there's the moral argument. Naturally most supporters of abortion rights, like myself see the need for a limit because we follow the scientific evidence that an unborn child can survive after 22-28 weeks in the womb-that's why we have a cut off point. If you believe that life begins at conception (as this bill does) then you're not following the science

Good point however, I do not view this as sexism, it's a little immature to call it that, too. These are lives that could benefit humanity, erased, ripped to pieces. And I stand for equality, ending sexism, ending LGBT discrimination, I am a believer of equality. However what's equal when kids are dead?
And I'm not doing this based on religious views, I'm not the most religious person out there, I'm doing this to save a generation. However I can agree that we can add the cases of rape and incest too however, abortions won't be encouraged. When a woman goes somewhere to seek advice they won't say "get an abortion" but list adoption first. I'll introduce an amendment:

The Anti Minor Death Act:

1. This act hereby states that all abortions, be totally banned (excluding the cases of rape, incest, and situations when the mother's life is in danger). If a baby is accidentally born and not intended, it should be given to an adoption agency or someone who wants one. A five hundred dollar grant will be given to the people who adopt a baby that a mother does not wish to care for.

2. Any doctor who will violate this law shall be subject to a manslaughter charge, likely meaning, they'll go to prison for a bit, same as any person who will illegally provide abortion services. Offenders shall also have a loss of medical license.

[Ex-Assemblyman Steelers]

Only sane vote of this proposal would be
NAY! NAY! NAY!

[Leinad]

There is something in the fact that an entirely male legislative body is making decisions that impact upon women, and there right to have control over their own bodies. In the same way legislative bodies that didn't feature black, or LGBT citizens were more likely to provide a one sided view of social issues back in the 60's and 80's when both issues were important

I totally get your point, but gender doesn't define a correct or incorrect position. I'm not oppose to abortion because I'm male, but because of the facts of the issue itself. If my stated motive was "women don't deserve their rights" I'd 100% see your point. But it isn't. My stated motive for opposing abortion has nothing to do with women's rights, but the rights of the child within her.

Lots of women are against abortion, by the way. I can't quote actual polling data, but I'd presume they're only minorly more pro-choice than men, if even that. What would you say to them? Are they doing something wrong?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So we're defining when life begins based on when the life can survive? I mean, some people can't survive without medical assistance--does their life not matter? Not trying to bring the euthanasia debate into the discussion, just trying to determine what your standard of life/not life is.

To me, I think we need an objective, absolute line. Let's say that the legal cutoff is at 22 weeks. Then are you saying that a fetus at 22 weeks is a life and one at 21 weeks is not? If a fetus is aborted at 21 weeks, and then a month later one is born at 20 weeks and survives, does that mean the prior fetus was a life, and thus that specific abortion is retroactively immoral?

Again, just trying to determine the definition of life. To fully discuss that, I suppose we'd have to enter more of a philosophical discussion on what "life" really is. And, honestly, how could we truly know? And if we aren't sure if it's a life a not, shouldn't we err on the side of, uh, not killing it?

[Leinad]

Only sane vote of this proposal would be
NAY! NAY! NAY!

If you start with the premise that life begins at birth or late in the pregnancy, then yeah, you'd probably be right. But if you don't (or you aren't sure) it's not at all insane to support this bill or a variation of it.

[Ex-Assemblyman Steelers]

Its all begins with rights, you cant gives rights to ones depriving others.

[Leinad]

Its all begins with rights, you cant gives rights to ones depriving others.

Uh, exactly, so the right of the unborn child to live shouldn't be deprived.

I know that's not what you meant, but do you get my point? That argument actually works against you if you say life begins at conception or close to it. That's the fundamental question: when life begins, and I've explained my view on that in more detail earlier.

Regarding rights, I guess it's about who's right is more important. And either way, that's a no brainer: if life begins at birth, abortion is nothing more than a medical procedure and there's nothing really wrong about it; and if life begins before birth, it's obvious that ending that life, depriving the right of the child to live, is the greater offense.

Do you disagree with that logic? Certainly you see my point that abortion is the greater wrong if you start with the premise that the fetus is a life.

We have a rape exception, so pregnancies that the woman never consented to at all are exempt from this. And I understand the difficulties of holding a child for 9 months, which is why I included assistance for pregnant women in need in my original bill, and would still like to include something like this in this bill or another one.

I have this position because of rights. The right to life is as important if not more important than any other. It's not because of religion or sexism--I don't really have any of either. As I've attempted to explain throughout this entire thread, it's the only sane position to have if you think there's any chance that a fetus is a life.

[Adam Griffin]

It is my understanding that you cannot blanket ban abortions in Atlasia, although oakvale and TJ really screwed the pooch with their last little ruling.

If this passes, it will be challenged in court by my administration.

While there are potential restrictions that can be placed on abortion at the regional level, this vote will be a waste of your time, I feel, and it will result in court cases and public attention that will make you a laughingstock for the foreseeable future. For that reason and the well-established precedent that it will not succeed, I must heavily advise against the passage of this bill.

[Blair]

I have this position because of rights. The right to life is as important if not more important than any other. It's not because of religion or sexism--I don't really have any of either. As I've attempted to explain throughout this entire thread, it's the only sane position to have if you think there's any chance that a fetus is a life.

So then I assume you're opposed to the morning after pill?

[Classic Conservative]

It is my understanding that you cannot blanket ban abortions in Atlasia, although oakvale and TJ really screwed the pooch with their last little ruling.

If this passes, it will be challenged in court by my administration.

While there are potential restrictions that can be placed on abortion at the regional level, this vote will be a waste of your time, I feel, and it will result in court cases and public attention that will make you a laughingstock for the foreseeable future. For that reason and the well-established precedent that it will not succeed, I must heavily advise against the passage of this bill.

Mr. President what do you mean that the south can't blanket ban abortion and why does the administration which I am a proud member of have any interest in what the South does with a power given to them I believe under Roe v ZuWo???