After re-reading the newspaper account you linked, I have come to the conclusion that if I were on that jury, I would not have voted to convict, let alone condemn, as the evidence, as reported, does not prove guilt. Arrogance is not evidence of murder. An unwillingness to risk your life for your children, though reprehensible, is not evidence of murder. An unsubstantiated jailhouse confession is not evidence. Not looking concerned enough at the scene or looking too distraught afterwards is not evidence. Either they don’t know anything about justice in Texas, or the story left a few details out. But, that said, I can see your point, though I still think there are times when the death penalty should be used.

The Texas example simply shows us that someone can be convicted and executed under current law using current forensics science only to discover that the science was flawed. I can't accept the murder of an innocent person by the government for a crime they did not commit, simply because there was a trial that seemed legit at the time.
So you don't have anything reason other than your opinion for why blastocysts are human beings? I'm willing to question and evaluate my beliefs about the issue but so far have seen no reason to do so.

Looks like Texas needs to strengthen its rules. They may well have killed an innocent man.I advocate for the death penalty under stonger rules than these. I have not contended that innocents have not been put to death, only that in some cases it is the right thing to do. I already adressed you bizarre contention about ovums.

Your trite tactics are transparent.
So because those two appear to be guilty, it's impossible that any person has ever been convicted of a crime for which they were innocent? You bring up two cases that people will have a visceral reaction to in order to paint all those convicted of crimes as necessarily guilty. You and I both base our belief in their guilt based on the evidence and proceedings of their cases but neither of us KNOW that they are guilty. Feel free to prove to me that no innocent person ever has been executed and that none ever will be. What about Cameron Todd Willingham of Texas who was convicted and executed for a fatal fire that may have been accidental? He doesn't matter because you like the idea of killing people who have committed vile crimes?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/natio...
Because you cannot prove that a blastocyst is a human being you attack my contention that if a blastocyst is a human being then an egg is as well. I don't claim to be so smart as to assume what is possible in all situations. Please feel free to enlighten us with the facts that support your emotional opinion that blastocysts are human beings and what makes a blastocyst more of a human being than a human egg.
Still waiting for you to prove that an egg is not a human being at least as much as a blastocyst and that no innocent person ever has been or will be executed.

Please ask any rape victim who has raised her rapist's child how much support the rapist has given her (financially and emotionally).
Pretty sure that the rapist isn't going to hand over monthly child support checks, or their medical history so the mother & child know what to expect, when that child gets older. I am also pretty positive that he is not going to say 'hey, can I take the baby for a while so you can tend to your emotional scars and not be resentful to the child that I fathered?'
That - my friend - is going to be a cold day in hell when that happens!!

If you can't accept the guilt of Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy, nothing anyone can say will change you opinion, as it is based on emotion and not logic.The criminal justice system has many layers of appeals. Outside of this, the governor or the president can commute a sentence if he can be convinced to do so. Again, your objection is based on emotion, not logic. You state "You asked me to prove that a blastocyst is not human life. It has the potential to be a human being, and comes from a human, but that does not make it life.". Yet again, your opinion is based on emotion and not logic. You admit that you cannot prove it is not life, yet you insist that it is not.

Again, you are willing to accept the execution of an innocent person because you believe that our justice system is infallible. Let me repeat that for you, you are willing to accept the killing of an innocent person.
You asked me to prove that a blastocyst is not human life. It has the potential to be a human being, and comes from a human, but that does not make it life. Hypothetically, parthenogenesis could occur, that does not make an egg a human being. With the advances in cloning technology, we could potentially create clones from cells in the body. That does not make those cells human beings. A blastocyst is a potential human being, not a human being. If you want me to prove that a blastocyst is not a human being, then I politely ask you prove how a human egg is not so that I may know what you deem a proper proof since I can't prove either one.

This is logic? How do you prove a negative? It looks like your saying that immaculate conception is a common occurrence. It's up to you to prove it does occur. Just as with your argument that innocents have been executed.

Sounds like you don't understand logic and/or biology. We have seen a process in many species called parthenogenesis in which an egg self-fertilizes and creates a fetus of that species. Prove that parthenogenesis could not occur in a human woman and cause an egg to become a human being.

If you leave an unfertilized ovum alone, nothing happens. If you leave a fertilized ovum alone, something wonderful happens, a bundle of joy. Cause and effect. One results in menstruation, the other in procreation. Seems like proof to me.

You think because you ask me to prove an impossibility that you have won the argument?
Prove that no innocent person has ever been executed for a crime.
I contend that every human egg is as much a human being as a blastocyst. If you are correct and a blastocyst is a human being, then an egg is a human being. If so, then abstinence is murder.
I challenge you to prove that every human egg is not a human being.

You insist that anyone convicted could be innocent in the absence of absolute proof which is not possible to obtain, yet you will not call that "small clump of cells" a human even though there is no absolute proof that it is not. Your standard works both ways. I contend that those small clumps of cells are human life. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

I am not omniscient and cannot say whether they are guilty or innocent. Are you?
I am strongly against harming unborn people. That does not mean that I will force a rape victim to risk ovulation, fertilization or implantation of an embryo. A small clump of cells with the potential to become a human being is not a human being. There is a point, after fertilization and implantation at which a pregnant woman is carrying a person and triage should be the only reason for an abortion at that point.
Human eggs can potentially(theoretically) become a human being through the process of parthenogenesis. This does not mean that abstinence or turning down a man who wishes to have sex makes a woman guilty of murder. Potential to become a human being is not the same as being a human being.

So, no proof is good enough and you still contend that Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy could be innocent? You have no faith in a criminal justice system weighted heavily in favor of defendants? Strange that your heart bleeds so for people like that, but you have no mercy for the unborn. Wisconsinheat seems to think that only questions he likes should be answered. That’s the trouble with free speech, sometimes you here things you don't like. I suggest that if you are so certain of your opinions, that you should take the time to enlighten those of us that are too ignorant to think like you.

billnewbie,
Yes, the fallibility of humans is my basis for being anti-death penalty. If even one innocent person is executed, then it is a bad policy. As wisconsinheat points out, you can reverse a jail sentence but not an execution. I find it interesting that someone who doesn't want emergency contraception because they are under the impression that it is killing innocent people is willing to accept killing innocent people as long as there is a trial and an appeals process.
I find it hard to accept your argument that women cannot prevent a pregnancy using emergency contraception when you are willing to accept our government murdering innocent people.

Sorry for that last post being so far off topic but some things just can't go unanswered.
.

And some things don't deserve an answer.

"if absolute proof is all that will satisfy, then you must also be opposed to criminal punishment in all its forms, as no one incarcerated today is absolutely, 100% known to be guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever."
.
If they're locked up and later found innocent, you can let them out.
.
If they've already been executed you can't bring them back to life.

No. Thats why we have a long appeals process. Are you sure this is the basis of your opposition?

So if new evidence is found that shows that someone who was put to death by our justice system was actually innocent, you are ok with it simply because they went through a trial?

It seems that you want absolute proof. Rules of evidence should be higher in capital cases. Two eye witnesses, for instance, to sentence to death. There have been many cases where there was no doubt. No one believes to this day that Jeffrey Dahmer was innocent, nor Ted Bundy, nor John Wayne Gacy to name a few. But, if absolute proof is all that will satisfy, then you must also be opposed to criminal punishment in all its forms, as no one incarcerated today is absolutely, 100% known to be guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever.

... and that makes it acceptable if an innocent person slips through?

We have courts of law, juries, legal counsel, police investigators, DNA identification and lengthy and numerous appeals available. All designed to bring justice to the guilty and prevent wrongful convictions.

billnewbie,
What about those who might be wrongly convicted? Capital punishment being a punishment for crimes opens up the possibility of innocent people being killed for crimes which they did not commit. Is it acceptable to kill the innocent as long as we THINK that they are guilty?

justsome1here:
Hope you get to read this, as this post is a day late.
I would like to explain how I can be against abortion and in favor of capital punishment.
One is innocent, and one is not. One has willfully committed a horrible crime against another, and one has never exercised free will at all. One has lawyers and family and friends to defend him and plead for him, the other has only its mother to defend it, if she will. One has courts of appeal to petition, the other has no one to appeal to at all. I hope you understand my reasoning.

Those most passionate about retaining ALL reproductive rights safe, legal and (VERY important) accessible, are those who lived - and survived - the years when many options were illegal and dangerous. Sadly, too many younger women still believe their rights today will never be taken from them and, therefore, don't completely understand the enormous value of choice. As with most issues, it's one thing to discuss things theoretically and completely different when you and/or your family are personally affected. I, a mother of 3, made my CHOICE. KEEP YOURS SAFE & LEGAL as a decision between yourself, your health care provider and in line with your personal beliefs whether it be with or without children.

I, for one, am passionate about pro-choice. I believe every woman should have the ultimate say over what happens to her body.

In the professional sense, as a certified pharmacy tech, I have sold the morning after pill on countless occasions as it is not my place to question whether the woman was a victim or if she's just using it as a convenient form of birth control. I practice in a college town, so it is more likely that most of the women are partaking in risky behaviors, but it doesn't mean that I'll be less likely to sell them the morning after pill. I don't care if my co-workers refuse to sell it as long as someone else is there to sell it. Same thing goes for birth control. I have worked with many pharmacists that refuse to dispense birth control on moral grounds, but usually there is another pharmacist on duty who will do it so that it does not become an issue. You may remember awhile back there was a news story about a pharmacist that refused to dispense birth control to a young woman and he also refused to transfer the prescription because it conflicted with his moral beliefs. I firmly believe that pharmacist was wrong and crossed the line when he refused to transfer the woman's prescription.

IMHO - Abortion IS murder! MAP is not. I,being a woman,have a right to what happens to my body. Rapists should be castrated,not sentenced to death. I cannot imagine being a rape victim,although it happens all the time. I would not want to carry a child due to a rape,nor raise it. Let's just hope the E/Rs know if these gals are really raped and not just a drunken night of being loose.

Any secretary who would refuse to process a letter for a boss because of a particular belief disagreeing with the content, would no longer be employed even though this in't a "life and death" issue. On the other hand, if a pharmacist, doctor, or hospital doesn't want to provide women with access to LEGAL and SAFE medical options because of their singular morality, for some reason they think they should be exempt from punitive consequences? I think not. Medical professionals are well aware of the oaths they take when they enter the profession. This doesn't allow them to be selective nor morally prejudicial in how those who need and ask for their care are served. If they don't like the duties they are sworn to undertake, they should leave the profession. No one other than the living, breathing woman has any right to make any moral judgments nor deny her available and legal care when the issue is reproductive rights.

I really do not understand people that advocate life and are so vehemently opposed to pro-choice and then turn around and advocate the death penalty.

Who defends employers? Must they submit to this law in spite of what they believe? Ultimately, employers are people too. The state would force them to submit to this law or force them out of business. Whether it's your sensitive friend or her employer, or some other person, someone is being forced to submit to this violation of conscience. And for no other reason than that the majority wants it that way. Yes, the morning after pill is convenient. It assuages the conscience of those who are squeamish about abortion by allowing them to think that it was just a precautionary devise, and that they probably were not impregnated, so they didn’t really have an abortion. What one doesn’t know won’t hurt oneself. Yet, as can be seen in a lot of these posts, most are well aware that this pill is just an easy abortion. No absolute knowledge of a dead baby, just a harmless little pill that prevents a few cells from forming into a guilt trip

I didn't win anything. I wasn't any part of it.
I do believe that women should have this option, in the case of rape not as a form of birth control. And, your right, laws change everyday.
As shelley said, hopefully no one you love will ever have a need to have this option and no one is being pressured/forced to use it. I sincerely hope no one I love ever has a need of it either. Its only an option.
Someone I love dearly works at a hospital and knowing her heart, I believe that she would not want to have to offer this either. In fact, I don't know that she could or would. That is why I stated that if someone's views are strongly against this, employers should support them and have someone else do it that doesn't feel so strongly against it. No matter where you go, there will be pro-choice people and people that aren't.

In other words we lost, you won, accept it. My response to that is simple, no.
In this country, laws can be changed with only a change in majority status. With this precedent set, people now can be forced to do things that offend their sense of right and wrong by the fiat of the majority and the governor. This is what's known as the tyranny of the majority. It was for this purpose that the bill of rights was written as well as the declaration of independence. You'll think differently when it's your ox being gored.

The bill states that Wisconsin hospitals must provide RAPE VICTIMS with the information and provide the pills on request.
That is different than a group of people that stand outside a clinic trying to stop people from entering. That is different than standing on a busy highway, where families with small children are driving by with pictures depicting aborted fetuses that we then, as parents must try to explain to our young, innocent children.(This one I have a problem with)
This law does not require that employees of the hospitals must stand outside of OB/GYN offices handing out pamphlets to every woman who may or may not be pregnant on the morning after pill. Nor must they stand out on the highway with huge signs giving information. Remember, this is only for rape victims that are at the hospital for treatment!

That being said and flame away if you must. If someone working at the hospital does have strong opinions against giving out this material, I would imagine that one of their co-workers would be happy to do it for them. Then, it is just up to them to keep their opinion on it to themselves(be professional) and treat the victim with care, dignity and respect and leave their personal opinion out of it.

Whether you are pro-choice or not, you should be able to understand that. Oh, and it is now the LAW.

I advocate life. Life for your mother and life for you. I am distressed that you feel guilty for the sins of your grandfather. There is no way that you or your mother are responsible for the outrage perpetrated on your grandmother. As for me personally, you seem to think that I arrive at my opinion easily and without much consideration. That is not the case. As the effect of rape trickles down, so does the effect of abortion. There is no way to judge those effects as it is impossible to see the missing contributions of people who were killed before they were born. Consider what life may have been like without you and your mother and the effect that you both have had on all the people you ever knew. Now multiply those missing effects by 1.5 million aborted people a year since 1972 and their missing progeny. It staggers the mind, does it not?

My only point was that these professionals know what comes with the job before they take it on. If they do not like it then they should change professions. I have to set some beliefs aside to do my job and I am not upset by it. This is what i signed up for and I knew what it was going to be like going into it. I guess this point is mute because like you said you cannot force someone not to do something and then force the next guy to do something. You have got to be the best devils advocate I have ever seen. Kudos to you for stumping me....

The only issue I would take with your analogy is that early pregnancy is not life threatening and there is no shortage of health care people who will provide these services. To pass a law that states that all health care workers and facilities must participate in abortion without regard to their beliefs is forcing the beliefs of the originators of this law on those people, which is exactly what abortion proponents claim is the goal of anti-abortion advocates. If it's wrong to force a belief on some, then it is wrong to force a belief on all. If it's alright for this governor and legislature to force this issue, then is it alright for the next governor and legislature to force it's own agenda, no matter what that may be?

So by telling you what you don't want to hear, is silencing you? Yeah - okay!

Are you a foster parent billnewbie, or ever helped counsel or just listen to these ladies? Just curious. Because if you haven't, and just watched it happen in "someone else's yard", I might suggest just trying it sometime. Doing so may help you see the angle where people like me are coming from.

For the record billnewbie - yes, nearly everyday of my life I HAVE questioned if life would have been better for her, had that been an option. That's a pretty redundant question - don't you think?! I also question if the world would be better if I weren't here. I will tell you that I feel guilty for standing here today. Is that what you wanted to hear? That being said I try to make every day count and be as upbeat as possible.

Rape doesn't just effect just that lady, billnewbie, there is a trickle down effect, and effects families friends, etc. IF there is a way to help these women, and families - I'm all for it.

Billnewbie- While I disagree with your opinion I respect it. To see someone so passionate about a certain belief is rare these days. I do however fell the need to comment on what you said about this law conflicting with health proffesionals beliefs regarding the imorality of abortion. When certain proffesionals take on a position they are required to set their personal beliefs aside and do what the patient asks and what the law allows. For someone to make a decision for another is wrong in my eyes. If I were to go into a hospital after some sort of accident and the doctor looked at my file and said "Screw her Do not resesitate order give me the paddles" I would go after him legally after he brought me back to life. Not because I can but because he did not comply with my legal wish to stay dead once I was there. Did this come accross right or did I totally confuse myself?

So, if I get all the scientifically correct terms down pat, this somehow will change my mind? And what if I don't agree with the "experts" and continue to believe that life begins at conception? Perhaps you should do some research, then you may discover that science has not determined when life begins, only legal experts have ventured onto that thin ice of reason. As for your grandmother, you imply that she had a child as a result of rape. I would honor her as I honor my own grandmother. Was your parent this child? Has it dawned on you that if abortion were legal then, you may not be here now? Would the world be better or worse for your existence? I say better, even if you had your way and could silence me as you seem to want to do.

All I have to say to you billnewbie is this, I do not judge all as it seems you do. I do not put you down because of your beliefs. Therefore, do not judge others. I am done blogging because this is a very touchy subject and I hope you never ever have to help someone make this decision.

okay billnewbie, what shall I call it? THAT IS WHAT IT IS!! Or would you like me to use the term after 3 weeks of implantation? Blastocyst. Is that too technical for you? Do some research. Also, there is nothing legalistic about it. The reason that the M.I.P. is available up to 72 hours afterward, is because the zygote hasn't even attached to the uterus, and that takes approximately 72 hours to happen!
There is no doubt that a woman who has been raped will forever have those moments burned into her mind. I am saying that healing MAY be a little easier without having to plan for a birth. I don't know about you, but I must say that it is a little harder to push that to those thoughts to the back of the brain when you are changing diapers. Isn't there an old adage "out of sight, out of mind"?
And while we are at it - shall I sit you down with my grandmother, and you can have a nice little chit chat with her about how she felt about the decision she was faced with? I would happily arrange for it! You can ask her if that option was available to her BACK THEN - would she take it? But she didn't have that option available to her. She was the ripe age of 14. She is a phenomenal woman, with incredible strength, and I give her many kudos to raise my mother.
So billnewbie, what day is good for you to sit down with her, and maybe even a OB/GYN who could expain all the intricacies of conception and life?

If I am entitled to my opinion, then why should I be shamed? Because I don't agree with you?

You judge rapist don't you? Murderers? Child molesters? Swindlers? Adulterers? The foul mouth brat that lives down the street? Your husband when he comes home late?

No, I gave my opinion on a subject.
Everyone is entitled to there own.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion just as I said before but being the partent of a rape victim I sure as heck was not going to risk the chance of her becoming pregnant with a child that was the result of a rape. I do not wish this on anyone so shame on you billnewbie.

Yet you judge someone to be a judge.

I judge no one.
Its not my place.
Nor is it yours.

Yes, this law deals with rape victims and also health care personnel who care for rape victims. The state will now force conscientious objectors to participate in what they may view as immoral behavior with only one recourse, resign their positions. Perhaps we should require such people to wear a yellow six pointed star prominently on their clothing so that we know who they are and can legally discriminate against them. Furthermore, abortion occurs after conception. Drawing a difference between implanted or not is a technical argument made to soothe sensibilities. As I said before, some demand not to be judged while I am judged as uncaring about raped 16 year olds. Would you feel better if someone I care for were raped? Would it satisfy your sense of outrage that I dare to advocate against abortion? Is this the only way one can earn credibility on this subject?

Thats just it billnewbie.
This is not "abortion".
Abortion occurs after conception and implantation.
MAP prevents that from happening.
And lets remember, we are talking rape here.
MAP is not an abortion and is not intended to be used for birth control.
And, this law makes it available to rape victims, not to the general public to use as birth control or to abort.

So, billnewbie, how do you think you would react if your 16 year old child was raped?? Would you let your child make the choice in taking the emergency contraceptive? Like I said in my last post, don't place judgement on anyone until you have dealt with this issue personally.

Calling it an impressive name like zygote and drawing some difference between inplanted or not are legalistic arguements that say nothing, just as the interpretation of the law by legal experts does not settle the moral question which is the real problem. No one likes to be judged, not pregnant women who choose abortion, nor anyone else for that matter. Yet you judge me as uncaring of 12 year olds who are raped. Nothing could be further from the truth. You assume that a pregnancy that results from a rape would be just as traumatic for the girl or woman as the rape itself. Yet, by implication, you seem to say that the pregnant woman would suffer no trauma from the abortion. Many women do suffer terribly due to their decision. Many women have these children despite the well meaning pressure applied to them to abort. And it is interesting to note how little regard there is from some for these innocent children. How jaded some are to so easily advocate the destruction of these children without any consideration for the harm they do.

I have been reading everyone's thoughts & perspectives how the morning after pill (M.A.P.) is the same as an abortion. Not so. I just had to throw in my two cents. I am not in the medical field, but I am a woman, and I know how to do some research.

The M.A.P. is given within 72 hours of "contact". This is to stop anything that may or MAY NOT have formed. If something does form, those cells, called a zygote, don’t attach itself to the uterus until around 72 hours after the sperm & egg meet in the middle.

So we give her a M.A.P., and her body flushes out these cells even before they attach to the uterus wall. Are you telling me it’s still a baby? The first heartbeat doesn't even occur until about 6 weeks! Wait about 7-9 weeks of "baking" and those cells are FINALLY considered a fetus.

So, now after learning all of this captivating info (yeah right) on Pregnancy 101 – is the M.A.P. really that horrible. Stopping a pregnancy before it even starts? It’s like taking an aspirin before a migraine hits.

An abortion occurs AFTER implantation, a M.A.P. is given BEFORE implantation.

C’mon, as if the mental memories of what happened aren’t enough, that woman would have to re-live that incident day in, and day out, as she raises the child. Don’t you think it’s pretty selfish to withhold any opportunity, to that woman, to not re-live that rape, day in and day out?

I am curious what the answer is when I ask - what if it was your 12 year-old daughter? I imagine a trip to hell & back to comfort her, and ease her pain would happen, am I right.

Thought so.

It’s amazing in this day and age people would think a woman SHOULDn't be allowed to choose! Would YOU want to carry a rapists baby? Would you want your daughter to… Your mother or sister or WIFE to?

It’s absurd to say anything is being killed. Laws state that a child isn't alive until it is self sustaining and draws a breath. How dare ANY of us say what’s right in such a traumatic situation since every situation is different and NO ONE knows how that woman feels… is it better that baby grow for 9 months in a person who is constantly upset, worried and tortured at what’s growing inside them? Get your head out of the stone age. What ANYONE does with their OWN BODY doesn’t apply to you… or me for that matter.

Have any of you ever dealt with your Daughter being raped? My Daughter was raped last year and did receive the emergency contraceptives. I am a firm believer in this, try being on the other side of the fence before judging other people's choices. Sincerely, a Mother of a rape victim.

It was stated "No one has the right to make decisions or choices concerning anyone elses body". Yet many claim to have the right to make choices about the innocent body within them, as if that body has no life at all. Funny how some can see so clearly when their rights are threatened, yet are so blind to the rights of others, such as health care workers who believe that abortion is wrong, or, the most innocent of humans, those who have not yet drawn their first breath.

Ms. Robinson's continued push toward basing life on quality. What this does is provide criminalization to health care workers when someone wants litigation rights. Another care where Ms. Robinson is WORKING AGAINST health care workers. Hospitals have been providing this education for years to all people who seek information. Nursing 101 tells us that patient education is a NURSING function (Remember Judy when you were a nursing instructor, I do). What happens when the information is claimed to be not provided is it becomes a CRIMINAL act against an entity, with GUARANTEED civial liability. So next time you have to pay extra for your medical procedure guess who pays... (this is how things really work)

Choices and decisions are made by others concerning people's bodies every day and an individual does not have the right to do anything that he wants to with his/her body. These are hard facts. I am not protesting your right, only your logic.

billnewbie-you have the "right" to make choices concerning YOUR body. No one has the right to make decisions or choices concerning anyone elses body, which is what your saying you think is right.

So, if there is a "right to rape" then there must also be a "right to kill", is that the reasoning? I am surprised that anyone would make such an absurd statement. I support the right of the innocent to live. I support the death penalty for rapists. I respect any woman who has a child she did not seek to have. And I detest any politician who would force people who also respect innocent life to participate in it's destruction for the advancement of their agenda and to pay back political and financial support.

Evansville-Great point.
It should always be a woman's right to choose.

On the practical side, I am glad that this is available to women. But philosophically, if we are willing to kill an innocent in consequence to an act of rape, isn't it only fair that we be willing to kill the guilty? I am speaking strictly as a society and through due process. I might add that I am not advocating the death penalty for rapists, I am just pointing out something that seems curiously unfair. Think about it.

Newbie-
If men would stop exercising their 'right to rape' in the first place, we wouldn't require such a law.

it's about time

Mercy ED has been doing this for years

Senator Robson is right. This is another milestone for the right of women to choose over the right of infants to live.