As if stamped out of an anti-woman mold, Republican hopefuls Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Paul all support the cruel and bizarre policy of "personhood," the belief that full legal rights instantly accompany the joining of every sperm and egg.
Voters wishing to see Republican personhood in the process need look no further than Virginia, where the GOP-controlled House just passed HB1, (Marshall-R).
Part of a matched set of two astonishingly cruel legislations, (the other bill literally requires a forced vaginal invasion -- a "transvaginal ultrasound" -- into any woman considering a legal abortion) of which the personhood bill may actually be more destructive.
The transvaginal ultrasound is humiliating, painful, medically unnecessary, and imposed on a woman against her will, like rape with a foreign object --but the personhood law is forever.
Do Virginians really want to criminalize the birth control pill, stem cell research, perhaps even the In Vitro Fertility (IVF) assistance for childless couples -- as well as a woman's right to choose?
Amazingly, this anti-women's rights bill is being offered as -- a traffic safety improvement!
Listen to bill author Bob Marshall (R-Manassas): "The legal effect here is (if) a pregnant woman is driving in an intersection and someone runs into her, she can sue for loss of a child," Marshall said. "...(the bill) has no direct legal effect on abortion or birth control."
Having first denied their bill would affect abortion or birth control, Republicans later revealed their true intent.
Asked if the bill was intended to "lay groundwork for outlawing abortion," the bill's author Marshall responded with the mocking comment:
"You'd have to be completely obtuse to not understand that is something I have worked toward for 20 years... "
Democrat Vivian Watts (D-Fairfax) challenged the bill, essentially saying, if the bill truly won't affect birth control, put that in writing -- add an amendment pledging nothing in the bill shall affect birth control.
But Republicans immediately voted 64-34 not to add this modest amendment.
Even Fox News, normally an apologist for all things Republican, did not buy the "no impact on abortion rights" nonsense, saying:"...Bob Marshall's House Bill 1 would effectively outlaw all Virginia abortions by declaring that the rights of a person apply from the moment sperm and egg unite."
If personhood laws are put into effect, government would literally have the authority to control the reproductive life of every citizen.
Were not Republicans supposed to be in favor of individual liberty?
Why then would they want to remove our right to use birth control? With an estimated 99 percent of all women of reproductive years reportedly having engaged in contraception, it hardly seems possible that Republicans would try to ban something as common as air.
True, Rick Santorum expressed his sentiment that sex with birth control is "not OK because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."
The other Republican Presidential hopefuls also support personhood, with the allegedly moderate Romney going so far as to say he would "absolutely" sign a personhood Constitutional Amendment.
What do American voters think?
When it reaches the polls, personhood is resoundingly rejected: recently being trashed in Mississippi, and twice defeated by 2-1 margins at the polls of Colorado.
Perhaps realizing the public would never approve such an erosion of freedom, Virginia Republicans are using their majority to make personhood law by themselves. Can they succeed? The GOP controls the House, Gov. Bob McDonnell is a Republican, the Senate is a tie vote -- with Republican Lieut. Gov. Bill Bolling is there for that all-important tie-breaking vote. We need one Republican to say, "Enough of this nonsense," and vote no on personhood.
Personhood is part of Virginia's upcoming Senatorial race as well, with candidates Tim Kaine (D) and George Allen (R) at polar opposites: Republican Allen supports personhood; Democrat Kaine opposes it.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats could not be more clear than in the various facets of the personhood issue.
Democrats support a woman's right to choose; personhood Republicans would revoke those hard-won freedoms.
Democrats support therapies derived from embryonic stem cell research; personhood Republicans want to prohibit it altogether, both public and private.
Democrats support birth control as between a woman, her conscience, and her physician. Personhood Republicans want to ban contraceptives by law.
In a land where freedom reigns, Democrats are clearly the party of personal liberty--and Republican leadership is out of touch with its own constituents.
Follow Don C. Reed on Twitter: www.twitter.com/diverdonreed
Biology is clear, at conception a new organism with its own DNA and gender is present. While it is dependend upon the mother to live, so is a newborn baby. Adults even are dependent on others for many things.
Sadly, our society is demonstrating it's "choice" and "liberty" to destroy the most innocent and helpless people on the planet. People who cannot defend themselves or speak for themselves, because they are snuffed out before they can grow and even voice their opinion.
Again, you've addressed thing very well. Thank you.
This bill does not allow the government to control the reproduction right of anyone. We will all still be able to choose when and with whom to have sex. The government isn't raping anyone. What this bill does is protect the rights of the unborn life that was created by the decisions of individuals. If we don't protect life at the beginning it won't be long before we stop protecting life in other stages (infant, elderly, disabled, down syndrome, etc.). We need to be VERY clear when we define life, and I believe that it starts with conception. When do you think life begins?
Outlawing abortion with absurdly rationalized notions such as yours will do nothing but make a safe and simple procedure, which has existed as long as women have been on this planet in one form or another, dangerous and barbaric for all of those except the wealthy. And let's not be coy about this: All you ultra-Right Wingers who have the same sort of unwanted fertility and birth control failures that the rest of us do, have ALWAYS been able to find a nice, upstanding private doctor to administer a safe abortion provided you've got a bunch of cash to pay for it.
Abortion is a reality. It is the obligation of a civilized nation to ensure that they are safe and legal, not backalley, barbaric and deadly. And don't even give me the "fetus is a person" bit....an acorn is not an oak tree, and a silk worm is not a sweater. Potential is powerful, but it is not actualized.
1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce through cell division and/or offspring.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.
The life of an oak tree is the same, you may call it different names as it developes, but it is always an oak tree. I reason this because it is never something else during development. (i.e. it is never an elm tree during its development)
If you think abortion is okay, then you must not believe life begins at conception. So, can you easily show me where human life begins? It all comes down to when human life begins. If the fetus inside a woman is not a human fetus, then what kind of fetus is it? It must be something other than a human to justify killing it.
Just because something has been done forever, doesn't make it right. Slavery has also existed since the dawn of man, and still exists today, but we in the US and most of the world don't see it as a moral practice.
What makes you think you have the capacity, knowledge, or experience to be the protector of human life by taking others' rights away? Your god certainly did not, because he supposedly gave us all free will. It is you and those like you, mere humans, that want to govern what others should or should not do with their bodies. It is you, and those like you that want to take away free will.
It isn't conservatives or liberals as a group that are hurting this country. It is the idea that an individual's beliefs should dictate how other people live. It is the idea that freedom only goes as far as you, one person, believes it should go for other people. It is the fact that you can't just allow other people to live their lives without dictating how they should live through law.
House Bill 1 helps bring VA one step closer to protecting the individual liberties of a baby in the womb. If one believes that life begins at conception then any action not protecting that person would be bizarre and cruel... not the other way around. Birth control that prevents conception would not be illegal because they PREVENT CONCEPTION, they don't kill a fertilized egg. HUGE DIFFERENCE and you should point this out in your article.
Here is what Wikipedia has to say about contraceptives:
Contraceptives are devices, techniques and methods used to PREVENT FERTILIZATION. Barrier contraceptives are devices which attempt to prevent pregnancy by physically preventing sperm from entering the uterus. Devices in common use include condoms, female condoms, cervical caps, and diaphragms. Hormonal contraceptives inhibit female ovulation or fertilization. These include injectable[10] and oral contraceptives. The most common hormonal contraceptives are the combined oral contraceptive pill, commonly referred as "The Pill", which includes a combination of an estrogen and a progestin (progestogen), and the minipill that contains only synthetic progestogens and do not contain estrogen.
I believe human life begins when it develops the potential to survive on its own, outside of the womb, seeing, hearing, feeling and experiencing life. But you are saying your belief trumps mine, and therefore there should be a law forcing me and everyone like me to conform to your way of life. That, in my opinion, is the epitome of intolerance.
I believe that women, just as men, have the right to the pursuit of happiness. That includes, but is not limited to, when they have been raped or their lives are in danger without an abortion. I believe that a living, breathing, human life is more valuable than the possibility of a fertilized egg some day turning into one. And I don't believe anyone should have the right to legislate others bodies, especially if they have never been there themselves.
it's true that a fetus is a type of life, but it is not yet human. it's missing important things like organs, and it relies on another living thing, the woman, to survive. a fetus is closer to a parasite than a real human life. (please don't read too much into that, i'm not calling a fetus a parasite)
however, one of the intersted parties is human - the woman. she has control over her body, not the other way around. and the gov't should not be telling her what she should or shouldn't do with it.
1. You must to breath air... nothing else will do. Even though modern medicine uses liquid ventilation to help patients having trouble getting enough oxygen through gas ventilation.
2. You must have all your organs. If an organ is removed, you are no longer human.
3. You cannot rely on another living thing. You must not allow anyone to grow food and prepare if for you. In fact, you can not eat living or dead food because then you would be relying on another living thing in order to survive.
Doesn't look like anyone qualifies to be human because of number 3.
If a fetus is not a human fetus, then what kind of fetus is it? A donkey fetus perhaps?
Nothing but nutrition and safety is needed from the point of conception in order for human development to begin. Human development only ends at death. Our bodies are always regenerating cells, growing bone, etc... and our noses and ears seem to keep getting bigger. We all need nutrition and safety not matter how far into human development we have traveled.