This doesn't bode well...

I don't think I've ever encountered the term, "preborn human beings" before.

I'm pro-choice, but I might be willing to compromise if we banned abortion on the grounds that "enjoyment of life" is a right. If the right to enjoy life was guaranteed, there'd be less demand for abortions, anyway, because there's be no adverse consequences to having an unwanted pregnancy.

Once enjoyment of life is a right, we'd have a framework for establishing universal health care, raising the minimum wage, extending marriage rights to gays, enacting strict environmental protections, shortening the work week, and, yes, legalizing the ganj!

deal or no deal?

oh I see, it already IS a right. Apparently one yous guys haven't taken very seriously in the past (eg, with your little "protection-of-marriage" stunt)

Puffy -- off the deep end as usual, I see. Are you trying to make up for Zimzo's absense?

Anyway, "enjoyment" in this case is an older definition in common use when the Virginia Constitution was written. In that sense, it means, "to have the posessioin, use, or benefit of something."

NLS has a very limited comprehension of women's issues and issues associated with the value of preborn human life in general. With the warm and occasional combative kindness of the blogging community, perhaps we should give him an education.

Enjoyment: "to have the posession, use, or benefit of something."

You mean something like equal protection under the law?

No, I didn't think so.

Enjoyment:
_______
_____________
http://www.thebeautifulmonster.com/bobmovie.htm

Wow. I'm not sure I could vote yes on that. The result would be to require a woman to take positive steps to aid in the implantation of fertilized eggs.

So, what if you do in-vitro fertilization? Those eggs are all "entitled" to life. Does that mean the woman is required to have every one of them implanted.

What if the woman dies? Can we draft other women into service to ensure the "fertilized eggs" enjoy their right to enjoyment of life?

I think it's a lot easier to defend a pro-life position that starts "at the moment of implantation" rather than the "moment of fertilization".

BTW, if you want to ban in-vitro, I'll consider that, it's a bit of an iffy thing for me, but if you don't ban it, this bill would be bad news.

BTW, I can't see this hurting any of the people who voted yes. It's clearly a defensible position -- in fact, allowing exceptions for rape and incest is an INCONSISTANT position. It suggests that, contrary to our stated values, the real point of banning abortion is to "punish women" for getting pregnant, and thus we allow abortions if it wasn't the woman's fault.

If on the other hand we are true to our principles, and argue against abortion because it kills an unborn child, that is true regardless of the method of getting pregnant. We don't allow innocents to pay for the crimes of others, and that should include unborn children and their fathers.

The people who will vote against someone specifically for their abortion stance would vote against ANY pro-life position, regardless of what "exceptions" were offered. The people who vote FOR pro-life will vote pro-life for people even if they allow the exceptions.

So it's really a wash.

And if anybody decides they oppose Marshall because of this vote, it could only indicate they have NO IDEA who Bob Marshall is. Because this is who Marshall is.

Charles,

Your suggestion that life begin at implantation is an interesting one.

Ultimately, I'm not a big fan of playing God whether its through IVF or abortion.

However, in a Roe v. Wade world, this bill was simply a statement of philosophy, and many suppposed 'leaders' in the Republican party showed their true stripes. Morgan Griffith, I'm looking at you.

However, if we follow this problem and consider a world after Roe. The courts would most likely interpret the bill to refer to fertilization inside the womb. Legislation means nothing until the courts interpret it, and I doubt that the courts would determine that the legislators meant to outlaw IVF when they had not discussed it at all. However, your point is taken and might make for a good amendment, but that will have to wait till next year.

There is a reason that the medical definition of pregnancy is at implantation. "Fertilization in the womb" is not an event that can be observed or known in any meaningful way; implantation is. No implantation, no pregnancy. There is no way of knowing with certainty why a zygote fails to implant, which can happen for a variety of reasons. If zygotes have the "right" to implant, are we next going to hold women responsible for their uteri not providing a receptive enough environment? I can't wait to see what's next on Bob Marshall's agenda.

Laws governing physiological processes that are based on anything other than medical fact will lead us down a very irrational road.

If you are philosophically opposed to abortion that's your right, but at least base that opposition on the actual medical definition of pregnancy.

David,

Your argument is ridiculous. Laws do not make natural bodily functions illegal. No one could possibly be held responsible for a natural abortion.

I think a compromise along the lines of implantation could be workable. However, the Republican nay votes were not about this distinction. Morgan Griffith, the majority leader, could have easily pushed for such a change and gotten it. It is his failed leadership that is the problem here, not the exact language of the bill.

"No one could possibly be held responsible for a natural abortion."

Delegate Cosgrove found that out last year, didn't he? Of course, it was due to the vigilance of citizens, not any common sense on the part of his colleagues.

Color me unimpressed.

the pro-life movement will never settle on "implantation" as the "beginning of life." Here's why:

"Plan B," or the "Morning After pill", works by preventing the egg from implanting.

You'd have to say, "life begins at implantation, unless you take action to prevent implantation, in which case it begins before implantation and you're a baby killer!"

If pro-lifers decide that they want to define life as beginning at implantation, it'd mean that Planned Parenthood could go on assisting women in having jurisdiction over their bodies. Pro-lifers wont go for that, it'd stick in their craw, and could embolden the enemy.

If I take measures to prevent your being alive next year, am I not a murderer?

You must also note that women do NOT have "jurisdiction over their bodies." The may not, in most places, be prostitutes. They must buckle themselves in when driving, and they must wear helmets when riding a motorcycle or even a bicycle. They are not allowed to smoke marajuana or inject themselves with heroin, either. In none of those cases is another life even involved.

I disagree with those other rules, as well. Don't you?

"If I take measures to prevent your being alive next year, am I not a murderer?"

um, not necessarily, but that's not the point. the point is that "implantation" will not be a "definition of the beginning of life" that the pro-life movement will settle on, because it would still allow for the morning after pill, and that would make them feel like they lost the war. ...and when it comes down to it, that's the point of the pro-life movement, and the right in general; to tell other people what to do and what to believe.

who the hell cares when pro-lifers decide life begins anyway?? the fact that you even need to have a conversation like this goes to show how ambiguous the whole thing is, and how, ultimately, it comes down to what individuals believe..

What it comes down to is someone's taking an action that intentionally ends the life of another.

"Ends the life"? That's murder. If you(fig.) want to settle on implantation as the beginning of life, than preventing implantation is not ending a life. It's preventing it from ever beginning.

"That's murder."

Exactly!! That's why we oppose abortion!!

When did I ever say I would settle on implantation?

Jack,

I guess I was responding to other the commenters' comments about 'implantation' when you first joined in.