FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Sex-selection abortion ban draws majority support but fails in House
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Only a matter of time before God's fireballs start to rain down.

"Washington D.C., Jun 1, 2012 / 12:03 am (CNA).- Despite gaining the support of more than half of the U.S. House of Representatives, a bill to prohibit abortions based on the sex of the unborn child was defeated on May 31.

“Sex-selection is violence against women, and it is the truest kind of war against women,” said Rep. Trent Franks on May 30, one day before the vote took place.

Franks, who had introduced the bill, said that it is an act of “extreme violence” to have an abortion solely “based on the sex of the child.”

“In 2007, the United States spearheaded a U.N. resolution to condemn sex-selection abortion worldwide,” he said. Yet America is “the only advanced country left in the world that still doesn’t restrict sex-selection abortion in any way.”

The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act was defeated in the House despite a 246-168 vote in its favor.

Normally, this majority would be enough for the bill to pass. However, the legislation was brought up under a suspension of normal rules. As a result, it would have required the support of two-thirds of the lawmakers in order to pass.

Republicans supported the bill by a 226-7 margin. Among those who voted against it was Ron Paul (R-Tx.), a former hopeful for Republican presidential candidate.

Democrats opposed the bill by a vote of 161-20."

And how about the joke that Ron Paul is pro life  :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
It sounds like a stupid bill anyway.  Why should it be better for a couple to lie about the reason they want an abortion?  And why should a female fetus be thought to be more deserving of protection than a male, or vice versa?   
Yeah, I keep hearing that this is not a pro-life issue, it's a basic human decency issue.  But why?  If a fetus is not a living human being, what's the difference?  It's bad for people to want a boy instead of a girl?  I guess, but are we really going to punish people just for that?  And how enforceable would this really be, anyway?  Obviously you could just lie about why you are getting an abortion.  This seems to me like a symptom of people realizing deep down that abortion is murder and and proceeding to something else on that assumption without actually acknowledging it, because abortion is just way to convenient too have around.
Dies anyone know anything about the "suspension of normal rules" mentioned in the article?
(06-01-2012, 10:52 AM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: [ -> ]Only a matter of time before God's fireballs start to rain down.
It really is getting that scary, actually.
This is new level, in terms of humans playing God in reproductive matters.

God is not amused.
It blows my mind that so many people allow themselves to see the evil of abortion only in this specific instance. Here they recognize that it's a real girl - in other words, a *person* - that they're killing. But if you're willing to kill the boys equality it's a non-issue again. Mind blowing.
This must be the kind of demon that only fasting and prayer can drive out.
(06-01-2012, 11:02 AM)Petertherock Wrote: [ -> ]And how about the joke that Ron Paul is pro life  :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

Jokes on you.  You've been suckered again into believing the Republicans actually want to do something against abortion.  If they did, they would have done it Constitutionally by giving the decision back to States like it was before Roe vs. Wade.  This ridiculous thought crime legislation on the other hand would do nothing to actually curb abortions, in fact, it could even increase them.  Plus, it's a nice racist jab at Arabs and Chinese who are probably the only one's really concerned about a baby's sex.

Anyway, enjoy voting for Romney. 
I got this from a news blog:

7 Republicans Ron Paul (TX), Justin Amash (Mich.), Charlie Bass (N.H.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Robert Dold (Ill.), Richard Hanna (N.Y.), and Nan Hayworth (N.Y.). voted against the bill?

Justin Amash posted this explanation on this Facebook page for why he voted the way he did.

"When did Republicans start supporting hate-crime legislation? Hate-crime bills, like H R 3541, are apparently okay if they have to do with a baby's gender but not okay if they have to do with a person's skin color or sexual orientation. Or maybe they're okay if it's an election year and Republicans are trying to make the President look like he doesn't care about women. I am appalled and outraged t...hat we would take an issue as sacred as life and use it so cynically as a political weapon.

Republicans, and especially conservatives, should oppose abortion. Period. H R 3541 criminalizes the MOTIVE for getting an abortion. In other words, it keeps all abortions legal except those obtained for the "wrong" reasons. But ALL abortions are wrong. And criminalizing motive makes this simply another hate crime. Literally the only difference between a legal and an illegal abortion under the bill is whether the "abortion is sought based on the sex or gender of the child."

The bill also shockingly makes it a crime for a medical or mental health professional NOT to turn in someone who they SUSPECT of having committed this thought crime. They can be thrown into prison for a year if they don't "report known or suspected violations . . . to appropriate law enforcement authorities." Free societies do not criminalize inaction.

I'm pro-life, and I think all abortion should be illegal. But Congress should not criminalize thought. And this bill won't stop a single abortion if it becomes law. Every person seeking an abortion simply will sign a form stating her motive is not the sex of the baby. Those of us who are pro-life should demand more from Congress. While we waste time on stuff like this, genuine legislation to protect life is ignored."
Pages: 1 2