Firebombing in TX

With all the hysteria being fanned by the GOP, we can probably expect much more and worse.

More and worst indeed one state is planning on releasing the names of doctors that does abortions inside the state.

How helpful for those of god soldiers that wish to kill a few abortions doctors having the state provide you with the information needed.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/03/tenn-abortion-bill-would-publicize-doctors-names/1?csp=34news

Tenn. abortion bill would publicize doctors' names
Tennessee lawmakers are debating legislation that calls for posting online the names of doctors who perform abortions and that could also identify their patients, The Tennessean says.

The measure, HB 3808 ("The Life Defense Act of 2012"), is to be taken up Wednesday by the House Health and Human Resources Committee, says its sponsor, Republican Rep. Matthew Hill of Jonesborough. The bill cleared a subcommittee March 6 on an 8-5 vote along party lines.

"The Department of Health already collects all of the data, but they don't publish it," Hill told our Gannett colleague in Nashville. "All we're asking is that the data they already collect be made public."

Opponents, however, say the bill is designed to intimidate doctors and their patients seeking abortions, even in emergency situations.

"I think publicizing this information will do nothing but cause serious consequences," said state Rep. Gary Odom, D-Nashville. "This is dangerous. This is a dangerous piece of legislation."

Hill said he plans to address opponents' concerns, without being specific.

The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the state constitution protects abortion.

I dont like abortion but its up to the woman and her conscience. I hate anonymous fire bombers. Especially if they claim to be religious.

Cyc:

LITTLE crazy? LOT crazy.

FOR THE RECORD:
I support Planned Parenthood,
and I support unlimited freedom of abortion,
for any reason, or for NO reason.





David

I'd say that makes you a RINO, David.

Not at all; that is not true,
unless u can prove that the Founders were anti-abortion
and that thay put that into the Constitution.

I don 't believe that u can. The Founders were not theocrats;
therefore, all theocrats are liberals, disloyal to Original Intendment.





David

That is an absolutely stupid argument, which imposes your definition of "liberal", which no one except you uses, on the whole discussion. You do not believe in what the founders believed, becajuse if you had ever actually read anything on the subject, you would know that they believed a whole bevy of different things, some of which were so radical they would make your toes curl even today. What you claim is their original intent, is a twentieth century interpretation of what a bunch of uber-conservatives thought that one small segment of the founders believed, with an overlay of primitive n19th century economic theory based on industrialism which did not even exist at the time they were writing the Consitution. And you are hardly the person to tell us what Republicans think, or decide who is one, when your views have relatively little intersection with a whole lot of Republican lockstep doctrine. Or intersection with reality.

Nonsense.

sorry, david, you're the one purveying the ahistorical nonsense.

What is "ahistorical" about what I said ?

this, for one thing.

I cite for you the Merriam Webster definition of liberalism, which is definitely similar to the one most liberals would use: "a political philosophy based on b elief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties". You will notice nothing in there of your ridiculous dichotomy of conservative vs. liberal. Those are in fact closer to the beliefs of the founding fathers than your peculiar version of conservatism is. And I am going to sleep now. Good night.

Of course it is. He didn't say you aren't conservative, he said you aren't Republican. The idea that the Republican party is conservative by your oft stated definition is clearly not true.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/arrest-made-in-attack-at-texas-democrats-office

Arrest made, details to come later

Cycloptichorn

Damn...

Violence is against the law, and is self-defeating for the purpose of eliminating abortions, in my opinion, since violence only makes for a diversion for what abortion is: killing a fetus that will become another baby. So, in my opinion, anti-abortion advocates would do better to educate the masses that an abortion is just pre-emptive infanticide. More emphasis needs to be put, in my opinion, on the newest technology that can show that a pregnant woman not only has a fetus with a heart beating fairly early in the pregnancy, but brainwaves reflect a brain that is already developing thought.

While the planet is getting crowded, the solution is, I believe, is to develop a male contraceptive pill/injection. Also, for those women that find themselves pregnant, and not wanting to raise a baby, there should be more resources at her disposal to address the situation, without it being a zero-sum game (baby wins with having life, or woman wins by having an abortion). Society might have to educate much of the masses that a woman can give up some time in her life (to have a baby) rather than decide pre-emptive infanticide is the most expedient solution. Let's remember that back in the day of the military draft, males usually could envision giving up two years of their life to Uncle Sam, and those males who complained were often made to feel like they were not being correct as a male and a citizen. So, for all the equal rights that women have achieved, they too could give up a little time for their own possible act of indiscretion.

so your suggesting that women with unwanted babies have them and give them over to the state so they can be drafted into some kind of child army

Kony, is that you?

Unwanted children can be given up for adoption, or kept in orphanages, based on a mother's preference. Orphanages could be run by religious institutions. This was once the way it was.