"The way the bill is crafted, it seems to be a significant roll back on a woman's right to choose and that's not something I'm prepared to support," said Assemblyman Rob Bonta (D-Oakland).
"My constituents do not support this particular effort in restricting access to reproductive health services or interfering in that relationship that a woman has with her physician," said Sebastian Ridley-Thomas (D-Culver City).
Chairman of the Assembly Health Committee Dr. Richard Pan reportedly called the practice of gender-selection abortion "abhorrent," but still voted against the bill, saying, "It actually criminalizes the discussion between a physician and their patient around reproductive choices."
Robert Smith, a spokesman for Assemblywoman Grove, told Breitbart News in a phone conversation that unfortunately, because of the legislative calendar, Grove would not be able to reintroduce the bill.
However, Smith also said that Democrats recently introduced ACR 149, a resolution condemning the practice of gender-selection abortion and designating the month of May as "Femicide and Gendercide Awareness and Prevention Month."
"The authors of this resolution oppose sex-selection abortion in theory, and will condemn it in a resolution. Yet they will not support a bill to actually outlaw the practice," Smith said.
I really don't, i hate strawmen, if you could point out where i made one you would be most welcome to do so.
However, since it's an established FACT that life begins at week 25 (if we are to believe that brain dead people are dead and if we don't the protesting against organ harvesting should be MASSIVE) there is no reason other than religious or forcing the woman to have a baby because she had sex that i know of.
None has been presented to me in 15 years.
What you think is a FACT isn't - it's merely you arbitrarily defining words to suit your purposes and saying it's FACT.
So are you saying you're 15 years old?
I don't really know how to respond when in the discussion of whether or not something should be legal it is suggested we ignore the Supreme Court.
The rational argument as to why one is protected is all over case law from the 1970's onward. Congress has broad power to regulate commerce. It has narrow power to regulate commerce when it conflicts with a constitutional right. Americans have a constitutional right to abortion. They do not have a constitutional right to organ sales. End of story.
What is fact is indisputable.
It is a fact that a born person that exhibits no activity in the frontal cortex beyond random impulse is clinically dead.
It is a fact that a pre week 25 foetus does not exhibit any brain activity in the frontal cortex beyond random impulse and is thus clinically dead.
Going nuh-uh won't change the facts as they stand.
You are trying to argue by going nuh-uh and you call ME juvenile?
Get over yourself, facts are facts regardless of whether you like them or even agree with them.
Lets say you walked into a hospital and shot someone with no brain activity in the frontal cortex. But still having brain activity in the reptilian portion of the brain and not on life support.
Do you think you would be charged with murder?
I like when DVC posts in threads like these, so I can simply /agree. It's a completely unnecessary bill and only serves to attempt to get some legislation on the books that would further restrict abortions.
You think people should be able to obtain an abortion for no other reason then that the child isn't the sex they wanted?
At face value, no.
However, let's say the potential mother has some deep-seated psychological issues that she feels would be set off by having a baby of a particular gender, then would you want her to raise a child of that gender?
Would you want a mother that screwed up to raise a child of either gender?:hmm:
I say we move forward quickly so all these people who actually really care about the babies (you really do, don't you) can carry them to term themselves.
It's the perfect solution, develop the technology for men (because it's overwhelmingly men that wan this) to carry a child and implant them in them.
What is fact is indisputable.
It is a fact that a born person that exhibits no activity in the frontal cortex beyond random impulse is clinically dead.
It is a fact that a pre week 25 foetus does not exhibit any brain activity in the frontal cortex beyond random impulse and is thus clinically dead.
Going nuh-uh won't change the facts as they stand.
You are trying to argue by going nuh-uh and you call ME juvenile?
Get over yourself, facts are facts regardless of whether you like them or even agree with them.
wrong.
Of course a more interesting question is that since pro-choicers base their argument on the fetus not being viable outside the womb:
What happens when artificial wombs are invented and the fetus is essentially viable from conception? Do you think pro-choicers will then support treating women the same as men and forcing them care for their children that are incubated in artificial wombs?
What if you shot yourself in the head, would that make it suicide or just removing unneeded tissue from your person?
I'm not going to dignify your question with an answer, if you thought i would you are even more stupid than i thought.
I just presented the actual definition for life and the foetus development for when it reaches a stage of life, these are indisputable facts and you bring drama because that is all you have.
It's quite pathetic but still, i suppose it's better than having you in a rape thread pointing out how much they deserve it so keep posting here.
How will this fetus be transplanted to a womb? Through invasive surgery. Duh.
I say we move forward quickly so all these people who actually really care about the babies (you really do, don't you) can carry them to term themselves.
It's the perfect solution, develop the technology for men (because it's overwhelmingly men that wan this) to carry a child and implant them in them.
Meanwhile most of the staunchest anti-abortionists want to make it harder on single women with children to feed their child...
How about a bit of an incentive to keep the child? Well that is just out of the question, the better question is, how can we punish women who have sex?
Because that is ALL this is about, it's not about women giving birth to babies that if you had your way would starve to death or at the very least live in poverty and grow up as criminals, it is about you getting to execute your power over women.
You mean kind of like an abortion?:hmm:
And besides. The argument was that its okay to kill the fetus since its not viable outside the womb. In my scenario fetus is viable outside the mother and so by pro-choicer logic you can't kill it.
To me the bill creates a foot-in-the-door opportunity for the authorities to regulate and restrict abortion, and to prosecute abortion practitioners. I can't imagine there is a huge problem with people selectively aborting based on gender anyway. I would strongly oppose this bill if it arose where I live.
lol. You've spent all this time arguing about abortions and you don't even know how they are performed.
Dumbass.
Of course you can. Not viable without major, invasive surgery works just fine too.
Sadly, this. I can see it now: "If you've had an ultrasound you can't have an abortion, because there's no way to determine if you're doing it solely due to gender bias." would be the likely argument.
If you wanted to get an abortion why would you get an ultrasound?
You want to see the face of who you are killing?D:
Again with the strawman arguments.
If you wanted to get an abortion why would you get an ultrasound?
You want to see the face of who you are killing?D:
Pretty sure you have referred to abortions as invasive before. You really shouldn't call yourself a dumbass.
That doesn't even make sense. The situation is really no different than currently for a woman at 6 months gestation.
you have no issue forcing the woman to continue carry the fetus and then give birth to said fetus. I think any procedure to remove a 1 month fetus is likely to be far less invasive than giving birth.