• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Paul Ryan sponsored federal fetal personhood bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
HomerJS

HomerJS

Lifer
In case you didn't know this proposed law would define a fertitized egg as a person.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr212

This would in effect ban the most popular form of birth control, hormonal (the pill). Romney stated in an intervew he would be in favor if this bill was brought to him. It would also ban abortions in the case of rape or incest. Banning forms of birth control, rape victems can't get an abortion? I guess that war on women is just a rumor.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...hood_n_1767760.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012
Despite Mitt Romney's efforts to court women voters ahead of November, he chose a running mate who is far outside the mainstream on women's health issues. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) cosponsored a bill that would give fetuses full personhood rights from the moment of fertilization, which was even rejected by voters in the socially conservative state of Mississippi. He voted to defund federal family planning programs, authored a budget that dismantles Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, all of which disproportionately aid and employ women
Click to expand...

Repost.
admin allisolm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love the unintended consequences of these types of bills.

Since 50% or so of all fertilized eggs fail to implant this type of bill turns what should be a none event, didn't get pregnant this month, into a dead "child".

So if you believe a fertilized egg is a person keep that in mind when you have kids. But I guess it's ok to kill a couple of kids because you want one. But it's not ok to have an abortion because you don't want a child.
 
A personhood bill wouldn't change anything about abortion, but it is a testament to the ignorance of proponents that they think it will. No matter what happens, you still have the right to evict an unwelcome occupier of your body.

Republicans are idiots... Who could've guessed? 🙄
 
HomerJS said:
In case you didn't know this proposed law would define a fertitized egg as a person.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr212

This would in effect ban the most popular form of birth control, hormonal (the pill). Romney stated in an intervew he would be in favor if this bill was brought to him. It would also ban abortions in the case of rape or incest. Banning forms of birth control, rape victems can't get an abortion? I guess that war on women is just a rumor.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...hood_n_1767760.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012
Click to expand...

What can you say about a bill that even the state of Mississippi rejected.
 
HomerJS said:
In case you didn't know this proposed law would define a fertitized egg as a person.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr212

This would in effect ban the most popular form of birth control, hormonal (the pill).
Click to expand...

The most commonly used birth control pill does not dislodge a fertilized egg. RU-486 does that.

Romney stated in an intervew he would be in favor if this bill was brought to him. It would also ban abortions in the case of rape or incest. Banning forms of birth control, rape victems can't get an abortion? I guess that war on women is just a rumor.
Click to expand...

Except for that omission, I have no issue whatsoever with this bill. And don't pretend that the inclusion of that exception would make you any happier about it.
 
Just another Republican that wants to codify his personal religious beliefs into the law of the land.

I am really sick of this crap. Choosing a religion with its baggage of restrictions should be a personal choice, not a mandate to make me live by the same restrictions. Such actions are the opposite of religious freedom.
 
jackschmittusa said:
Just another Republican that wants to codify his personal religious beliefs into the law of the land.

I am really sick of this crap. Choosing a religion with its baggage of restrictions should be a personal choice, not a mandate to make me live by the same restrictions. Such actions are the opposite of religious freedom.
Click to expand...

I keep wondering who's in charge of pointing that out to the U.S. Taliban. Seeing as a bunch of our Congress-critters are lawyers though, shouldn't they know that going in?
 
jackschmittusa said:
Just another Republican that wants to codify his personal religious beliefs into the law of the land.

I am really sick of this crap. Choosing a religion with its baggage of restrictions should be a personal choice, not a mandate to make me live by the same restrictions. Such actions are the opposite of religious freedom.
Click to expand...

Oh please Democrats are just as happy to codify their personal beliefs into the law of the land.
 
Atreus21 said:
The most commonly used birth control pill does not dislodge a fertilized egg. RU-486 does that.



Except for that omission, I have no issue whatsoever with this bill. And don't pretend that the inclusion of that exception would make you any happier about it.
Click to expand...

The pill inhibits fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterine wall, preventing pregnancy. Since the fertilized egg is a person preventing attachment would be tantamount to murder.
 
HomerJS said:
The pill inhibits fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterine wall, preventing pregnancy. Since the fertilized egg is a person preventing attachment would be tantamount to murder.
Click to expand...

HomerJS said:
This is where
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33836552&postcount=15
Click to expand...

Of course unfortunately for you the bill is about government funding of abortion. It obviously does not, and cannot, ban abortion.

So what it would do is, at most, restrict government funding for birth control pills.
 
nehalem256 said:
Of course unfortunately for you the bill is about government funding of abortion. It obviously does not, and cannot, ban abortion.

So what it would do is, at most, restrict government funding for birth control pills.
Click to expand...

...and there goes the women's vote.


Maybe the conservatives can go on about them being sluts and whores again (aside from baby killers) and they should squeeze an aspirin and shut their (pie)holes. That was fun.
 
nehalem256 said:
Of course unfortunately for you the bill is about government funding of abortion. It obviously does not, and cannot, ban abortion.

So what it would do is, at most, restrict government funding for birth control pills.
Click to expand...

No, HR 212, isn't. Did you even read the bill or are you just spouting your usual nonsense?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top