New Law Requires Women To Name Baby, Paint Nursery Before Getting Abortion

In The Know panelists say more states should make decorating a nursery and choosing a baby name required steps in obtaining access to an abortion.

Duration : 0:2:11


[youtube Zrm7W3zGSoA]

This entry was posted in abortion laws and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to New Law Requires Women To Name Baby, Paint Nursery Before Getting Abortion

  1. windowlicker752 says:

    Even if this is …
    Even if this is joking. I could believe the wackos in Arkansas would really be capable of doing this kind of stuff. HAHAHA

  2. eligray says:

    @Jonassoe yeah …
    @Jonassoe yeah I’ve always joked that by not having unprotected sex daily, a man is essentially aborting millions of children a day.

  3. eligray says:

    Exactly. And some …
    Exactly. And some people here will have personal experiences that support the logic that life doesn’t instantaneously “click” on. Rather, consciousness gradually builds up as the brain and nervous system slowly become more functional.

  4. MachShot1337 says:

    Life is different …
    Life is different from Human, and Human different from a Person.

    A tree is life, but it’s not murder to kill a tree. Neither is a mushroom. Within the animal kingdom, however, where the mind exists it is possible to actually kill something.

    So is a fetus life? Yes. Is it a human in regards to cell buildup? Yes. Is it a person yet? No. When the brain exist and begins to function, then it goes from a mass of cells to being a person. You can’t murder a mass of cells, but a person you can.

  5. Jonassoe says:

    The entire argument …
    The entire argument is ridiculous, because ovums and sperms die all the time without ever merging with each other, so potential life is wasted anyway. It’s like saying not having sex (or even having safe sex) is murder.

  6. ianrousso says:

    Haha
    Haha

  7. christiangoth84 says:

    The fact that …
    The fact that menstruation and abortion may both terminate unborn human life and the fact that menstruation is morally permissible do not necessitate the conclusion that abortion is morally permissible.

    DeadlyChinchilla: “Continuously comparing a potential life to an already living life is obfuscation in itself. Potential life has no rights…”
    Whether or not the unborn should be considered potential or actual human life is the very point of contention!

  8. christiangoth84 says:

    DeadlyChinchilla: ” …
    DeadlyChinchilla: “A fetus WILL be a human. A human is a biological description…”
    My point is that science disagrees. Biology says the fetus IS human.

    There are two flaws with your kidney argument. The first is that excepting rape, the woman is responsible for the existence of the unborn life using her body. The second is that abortion affects the body of the unborn directly. Consider conjoined twins, A surviving by use of B’s heart. May A destroy B’s head to stop B from using A’s heart?

  9. GmasterRED says:

    Oh boy. Here comes …
    Oh boy. Here comes all the maxed out 500 character comments debating abortion. I think I will just go to the next video.

  10. DeadlyChinchilla says:

    Hardly obfuscation. …
    Hardly obfuscation. Its a valid point, like it or not. Menstruation, natural abortion, conscious abortion, all are physically bound only to the woman, and nobody in a free and equal society has any say on that otherwise.

    Continuously comparing a potential life to an already living life is obfuscation in itself. Potential life has no rights, whereas independent life does. This is necessary legally as it protects the individual against people who would demand conformation to vague ideals.

  11. DeadlyChinchilla says:

    You obviously …
    You obviously misunderstood. I did NOT say “a fetus is not human.” I said its a human building block, right in line with the biology of it. Bit of a difference by what you said.

    The issue of “passive vs proactive” ignores the rights of the individual, which was my point. No kidney can be forcibly taken to save an already living person who needs one, just as no woman can be taken hostage and forced to birth to “save” a potential life. Pre-viability, the womans rights stand uncontested.

  12. muffinsNsausage says:

    well you didn’t …
    well you didn’t remove it, it was still there lol and second i know you were “fuckin’ around” but i was too lol

  13. christiangoth84 says:

    @DeadlyChinchilla ( …
    @DeadlyChinchilla (2/2)
    To say that menstruation is proactive is a misuse of the word, and it deliberately obfuscates the question at hand. Menstruation is fundamentally different from abortion, the latter being a deliberate act. To say that natural and intentional destruction of a zygote are equatable is like saying that death due to heart failure is equatable to death by stabbing. The difference is obvious. The conclusion is not the only variable in the nature of an act!

  14. silva6939 says:

    because of people …
    because of people like you people don’t have freedom to do what they want. Thats why this bothers me.

  15. christiangoth84 says:

    @Deadly Chinchilla …
    @Deadly Chinchilla (1/2)
    Saying that a fetus is not human because it has not yet developed into a human relies on your own definition of what a human is. Your definition must not be the scientific definition. Biology classifies a fetus as human life and an adult as human life.

    I do not want the unborn to have more rights than the born. Your kidney example fails to equate because the transmission of the kidney is proactive where allowing the fetus to live is passive.

  16. 6gording6 says:

    lol take a life …
    lol take a life save a life.

  17. rabidfish02 says:

    hit the refresh …
    hit the refresh button, it kills the Ad ;-) .

  18. chaz76vette says:

    ARGH, ADS!!
    ARGH, ADS!!

  19. gerryono says:

    I love abortion and …
    I love abortion and Jakc Kevorkian

  20. RocksLikeAHurricane says:

    so hilariousss
    so hilariousss

  21. JGrubb94 says:

    @thejen24 …
    @thejen24 Regardless of the circumstances its murder, and its optional. As for the comment about hangars, thats the equivalent of saying we should legalize murder that way murderers dont have to kill at night and get blood all over themselves with painful blades and weapons.
    Im also a christian.
    In my eyes its never right.

  22. alexandraja says:

    I am amazed that …
    I am amazed that they can do this with a straight face. xD absolutely. awesome.

  23. LithiumZ2 says:

    I love the Onion …
    I love the Onion because I love to see you Internet pseudo intellectual spew some bullshit you saw on the news agency that backs your particular political stances. delicious.

  24. Trenaur says:

    @cwjcss Your …
    @cwjcss Your opinion is completely subjective to circumstances and is thus, moot.

  25. cwjcss says:

    @ DeadlyC You say …
    @ DeadlyC You say it is a vauge sense of moral but if you were that unborn child and had a chance to speak out I think you would say differently. By saying that it is not killing that’s just sad because it is. Who ever says that abortion is not killing a human life is not human either. Then again we all have an opinion in this matter. I say that people should wait until they get married to have sex anyway, if they did maybe we would not even be talking about this, but that’s just my vauge morals