Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

REAL Pro-Life Bill That Forces Conservatives To Put Up Or Shut Up

Posted by   + Show Post
'Pro-life?' Meet the man who challenges the Texas legislature to abolish the death penalty before enacting their anti-abortion bill. Texas State Rep. Harold Dutton Jr.

‘Pro-life?’ Meet the man who challenges the Texas legislature to abolish the death penalty before enacting their anti-abortion bill. Photo of Texas State Representative Harold Dutton Jr. from the Texas Tribune.

If you are like me, you may have often wondered how those who call themselves “pro-life” can claim to care deeply about unborn life on the one hand, yet approve of the death penalty on the other. It’s nice to know that we are not alone, especially after what the Texas legislature has done in the past week. One member of the Texas House has taken this to his Republican colleagues in the form of a new bill. State Rep. Harold Dutton, Jr. has introduced HB 45, which is a very simple bill:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTION 1.  Chapter 170, Health and Safety Code, is amended by adding Section 170.003 to read as follows: Sec. 170.003.  LIMITATION ON ADDITIONAL ABORTION RESTRICTIONS. Notwithstanding any other law, a law enacted on or after June 1, 2013, that restricts access to abortion or the availability of abortion does not take effect until 60 days after publication in the Texas Register of a finding of fact made by the attorney general that the state has abolished the use of the death penalty as a punishment available on final conviction of a criminal offense. SECTION 2.  This Act takes effect immediately if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this Act takes effect on the 91st day after the last day of the legislative session.


Now, that’s what I call walking the talk. Well done, Mr. Dutton. Here is a man who understands what “pro-life” really means as opposed to the forced birthers who claim that they are “pro-life” yet they support a death penalty that has been proven to be unfair. Not only is it applied unfairly, the costs associated with executions are staggering: pursuing a death penalty case costs up to 20 times more than a life sentence. The death penalty is racist and there is no evidence that it acts as a deterrent.  The most damning fact, especially as applied to the pro-birth crowd, is that nearly every religion in America considers executions as being against their tenets. Oh sure, there are some passages in the Old Testament that are often used to justify the death penalty but most religious and interfaith organizationsregard it as immoral. Don’t take my word for it, read for yourself. I know my faith holds that executions are not in keeping with our belief system.

Texas accounts for 40% of all executions carried out in the United States. The state executed its 500th prisoner last month. Governor Rick Perry doesn’t seem to be bothered by this benchmark – he considers it a badge of honor that it occurred under his watch. To him, the Texas capital punishment system works “just fine” despite executing the mentally disabled, juveniles and even possibly innocent people.  But Perry doesn’t worry his pretty little head about that sort of thing, you see. He sleeps just fine knowing that his state is number one in executions because in Texas they are “going to support protecting life.” Folks, as they say down South, the boy just ain’t right.

As far as I’m concerned, Mr. Perry, if you don’t support caring for the poor, the sick, the elderly, if you don’t support contraception, childcare and education, if you don’t support health care for all then you are NOT pro-life. Pro-life means cherishing all life, not just giving lip service to it by holding a cluster of cells as having more rights than the woman who carries it. If you can’t commit to including all life in your heart, then please STFU. Because you are not pro-life when you continue to murder human beings in your death chambers. Here’s hoping that enough Texas legislators realize what pro-life really means and that Representative Dutton’s bill passes.



Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/17/texas-real-pro-life-bill/#ixzz2ZNXOvnpU

by on Jul. 18, 2013 at 3:10 AM
Replies (101-104):
PamR
by Pam on Jul. 19, 2013 at 9:23 AM


No. 

Quoting Meadowchik:

So you would support a bill restricting or banning abortion as long as it also abolishes the death penalty?

Quoting PamR:


Well, OK, if that's what your dictionary says.  But it's still hypocritical.  If you believe it's wrong for a human to take another human life, that includes everyone, not just the unborn.


Quoting yourspecialkid:

 


Quoting PamR:






Quoting yourspecialkid:


 I didn't finish the article.  Being pro-life has absolutely nothing to do with the death penalty.  The death penalty is a societal punishment for a heinous crime.  Most abortions are the mother's way of dealing with an inconvenience.  They are not even in the same ballpark.


 


If you're pro-life, you're pro-life, right?  You feel that humans don't have the right to take a human life, whether that life is unborn or that life is someone who has done wrong. 


The death penalty serves no purpose other than revenge.  It does not deter crime and it does not save the taxpayers money (it actually costs more to put someone to death than to incarcerate them for life).  Minorities and all poor people are disporportionately given the death penalty (because whether or not you get death vs. life depends a lot on your legal representation) and there have been quite a few people exonerated with DNA evidence. 






 A dictionary for you too....


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pro-life


 


pro-life (pr-lf)


adj.
Advocating the legal protection of human embyos and fetuses, especially by favoring the outlawing of abortion on the ground that it is the taking of a human life.






Saphira1207
by Bronze Member on Jul. 19, 2013 at 10:27 AM

That is a subject of much, much debate.  I agree that a lot of people feel the way you do.  But that's just what you're doing - feeling.

If you take emotion out of it, are they really still alive? Or are they simply existing?  Is it worth keeping them on machines just to make the truly living feel better, because that's all the machines do - keep them alive so the fully functional (ie: alive) can feel like they haven't lost something, even though it's already gone.

If you re-read my replies you will see I never stated a fetus is any other species besides human.  I simply stated that they were not capable of true living until a certain point in the gestation process.  That point is much later than many anti-choice people prefer to admit and/or accept.  Because they are too busy feeling rather than using logic and reason.

If you can, compartmentalize your feelings so they don't interfere with your thought process.  Then think this through using only verifiable physiological facts of pregnancy (you will find they are far fewer than the emotion based "facts" that you have been taught) and with out emotion.  


Quoting Meadowchik:

A fetus is a human being. We were all at some point each a fetus, an unborn human being. Whether the unborn don't think or feel is not enough to categorize them as inhuman. There are born people who cannot think or feel, permanently or temporarily, but they are still human beings.

Quoting Saphira1207:

Only once it can survive on its own outside of the womb.

Until then it's incapable of anything and should be treated as if it were a vegetable - existing but not really living.  Because that's what it is.

And please don't start trying to quote the "studies" that were paid for by various religious/anti-abortion organizations that "miraculously" showed that a fetus can feel and think.  Because any study that is paid for by a biased group and which comes to a conclusion that is in accordance with that groups viewpoint is subject to question.  Any one with critical thinking skills will question it.

And all of the ones I've read (probably 15 or so now covering the last 40 years) were poorly constructed and were designed to show only the one side of the issue.  And it didn't matter if it was from a conservative group or a more liberal/progressive one.  They were all very biased.  



Quoting Meadowchik:

 A fetus is a human being.


Quoting Saphira1207:


Are you referring to the killing of people without their consent?  Because that's murder.


If you're referring to assisted suicide that is a whole different thing and is legal is several states.  Generally those who understand how to treat patients with humanity and dignity.  HIPPA is about a person and their doctor having the ability to discuss medical options with the reasonable expectation of privacy from the prying eyes of the public, politicians, and capitalists.


When politicians, who generally have no clue about medicine, and the suits in charge of insurance, who also generally have no clue about medicine, start dictating who can have what medical procedure then there is a really big problem.


And that's what all this abortion nonsense is really about.  People who don't understand medicine (politicians, capitalists, lay people, etc) sticking their noses in where they shouldn't.  It's equivalent is telling people they can't have life saving surgery for cancer because those cells are alive.  The main difference is that cancer is truly a parasite that directly takes from the host.  A fetus is third in line for any nutrients that are consumed by the female in which is resides.




Quoting Meadowchik:

Hmmm, euthanasia is outlawed and we still have HIPPA. Banning some procedures does not render privacy irrelevant.


Quoting D-Town:

I think that if abortion is made illega HIPPAlaws should be repealed. If someone is going to stick their nose in my medical care then I should have full, unrestricted access to their medical records as well.





 






Meadowchik
by Silver Member on Jul. 19, 2013 at 11:16 AM
That's quite presumptuous. Look back at my responses to you. They are rational and objective. A fertilised egg meets the biological criteria for a living organism. If there are scientists who disagree, that doesn't imply emotional decision-making, it implies a different set of criteria.

Your terms appear illogical. You say a fetus is "existing, but not really living." Then you say they are "not capable of true living until a certain point in the gestation process." This is not scientific language. Either something is alive or not, biologically speaking. "Really living" and "true living" may be great philosophical concepts but they are not biological concepts.



Quoting Saphira1207:

That is a subject of much, much debate.  I agree that a lot of people feel the way you do.  But that's just what you're doing - feeling.

If you take emotion out of it, are they really still alive? Or are they simply existing?  Is it worth keeping them on machines just to make the truly living feel better, because that's all the machines do - keep them alive so the fully functional (ie: alive) can feel like they haven't lost something, even though it's already gone.

If you re-read my replies you will see I never stated a fetus is any other species besides human.  I simply stated that they were not capable of true living until a certain point in the gestation process.  That point is much later than many anti-choice people prefer to admit and/or accept.  Because they are too busy feeling rather than using logic and reason.

If you can, compartmentalize your feelings so they don't interfere with your thought process.  Then think this through using only verifiable physiological facts of pregnancy (you will find they are far fewer than the emotion based "facts" that you have been taught) and with out emotion.  



Quoting Meadowchik:

A fetus is a human being. We were all at some point each a fetus, an unborn human being. Whether the unborn don't think or feel is not enough to categorize them as inhuman. There are born people who cannot think or feel, permanently or temporarily, but they are still human beings.



Quoting Saphira1207:

Only once it can survive on its own outside of the womb.

Until then it's incapable of anything and should be treated as if it were a vegetable - existing but not really living.  Because that's what it is.

And please don't start trying to quote the "studies" that were paid for by various religious/anti-abortion organizations that "miraculously" showed that a fetus can feel and think.  Because any study that is paid for by a biased group and which comes to a conclusion that is in accordance with that groups viewpoint is subject to question.  Any one with critical thinking skills will question it.

And all of the ones I've read (probably 15 or so now covering the last 40 years) were poorly constructed and were designed to show only the one side of the issue.  And it didn't matter if it was from a conservative group or a more liberal/progressive one.  They were all very biased.  




Quoting Meadowchik:

 A fetus is a human being.



Quoting Saphira1207:



Are you referring to the killing of people without their consent?  Because that's murder.



If you're referring to assisted suicide that is a whole different thing and is legal is several states.  Generally those who understand how to treat patients with humanity and dignity.  HIPPA is about a person and their doctor having the ability to discuss medical options with the reasonable expectation of privacy from the prying eyes of the public, politicians, and capitalists.



When politicians, who generally have no clue about medicine, and the suits in charge of insurance, who also generally have no clue about medicine, start dictating who can have what medical procedure then there is a really big problem.



And that's what all this abortion nonsense is really about.  People who don't understand medicine (politicians, capitalists, lay people, etc) sticking their noses in where they shouldn't.  It's equivalent is telling people they can't have life saving surgery for cancer because those cells are alive.  The main difference is that cancer is truly a parasite that directly takes from the host.  A fetus is third in line for any nutrients that are consumed by the female in which is resides.






Quoting Meadowchik:

Hmmm, euthanasia is outlawed and we still have HIPPA. Banning some procedures does not render privacy irrelevant.



Quoting D-Town:

I think that if abortion is made illega HIPPAlaws should be repealed. If someone is going to stick their nose in my medical care then I should have full, unrestricted access to their medical records as well.








 








Saphira1207
by Bronze Member on Jul. 19, 2013 at 2:44 PM

banging head into wall


Quoting Meadowchik:

That's quite presumptuous. Look back at my responses to you. They are rational and objective. A fertilised egg meets the biological criteria for a living organism. If there are scientists who disagree, that doesn't imply emotional decision-making, it implies a different set of criteria.

Your terms appear illogical. You say a fetus is "existing, but not really living." Then you say they are "not capable of true living until a certain point in the gestation process." This is not scientific language. Either something is alive or not, biologically speaking. "Really living" and "true living" may be great philosophical concepts but they are not biological concepts.



Quoting Saphira1207:

That is a subject of much, much debate.  I agree that a lot of people feel the way you do.  But that's just what you're doing - feeling.

If you take emotion out of it, are they really still alive? Or are they simply existing?  Is it worth keeping them on machines just to make the truly living feel better, because that's all the machines do - keep them alive so the fully functional (ie: alive) can feel like they haven't lost something, even though it's already gone.

If you re-read my replies you will see I never stated a fetus is any other species besides human.  I simply stated that they were not capable of true living until a certain point in the gestation process.  That point is much later than many anti-choice people prefer to admit and/or accept.  Because they are too busy feeling rather than using logic and reason.

If you can, compartmentalize your feelings so they don't interfere with your thought process.  Then think this through using only verifiable physiological facts of pregnancy (you will find they are far fewer than the emotion based "facts" that you have been taught) and with out emotion.  



Quoting Meadowchik:

A fetus is a human being. We were all at some point each a fetus, an unborn human being. Whether the unborn don't think or feel is not enough to categorize them as inhuman. There are born people who cannot think or feel, permanently or temporarily, but they are still human beings.



Quoting Saphira1207:

Only once it can survive on its own outside of the womb.

Until then it's incapable of anything and should be treated as if it were a vegetable - existing but not really living.  Because that's what it is.

And please don't start trying to quote the "studies" that were paid for by various religious/anti-abortion organizations that "miraculously" showed that a fetus can feel and think.  Because any study that is paid for by a biased group and which comes to a conclusion that is in accordance with that groups viewpoint is subject to question.  Any one with critical thinking skills will question it.

And all of the ones I've read (probably 15 or so now covering the last 40 years) were poorly constructed and were designed to show only the one side of the issue.  And it didn't matter if it was from a conservative group or a more liberal/progressive one.  They were all very biased.  




Quoting Meadowchik:

 A fetus is a human being.



Quoting Saphira1207:



Are you referring to the killing of people without their consent?  Because that's murder.



If you're referring to assisted suicide that is a whole different thing and is legal is several states.  Generally those who understand how to treat patients with humanity and dignity.  HIPPA is about a person and their doctor having the ability to discuss medical options with the reasonable expectation of privacy from the prying eyes of the public, politicians, and capitalists.



When politicians, who generally have no clue about medicine, and the suits in charge of insurance, who also generally have no clue about medicine, start dictating who can have what medical procedure then there is a really big problem.



And that's what all this abortion nonsense is really about.  People who don't understand medicine (politicians, capitalists, lay people, etc) sticking their noses in where they shouldn't.  It's equivalent is telling people they can't have life saving surgery for cancer because those cells are alive.  The main difference is that cancer is truly a parasite that directly takes from the host.  A fetus is third in line for any nutrients that are consumed by the female in which is resides.






Quoting Meadowchik:

Hmmm, euthanasia is outlawed and we still have HIPPA. Banning some procedures does not render privacy irrelevant.



Quoting D-Town:

I think that if abortion is made illega HIPPAlaws should be repealed. If someone is going to stick their nose in my medical care then I should have full, unrestricted access to their medical records as well.








 










Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN