Va. House passes bill giving rights at conception

Posted to: News Politics State Government Virginia
Login or register to post comments

By Bill Sizemore
The Virginian-Pilot
© February 9, 2011

The House approved a measure Tuesday declaring that human life begins at conception.

Del. Bob Marshall's bill, HB1440, confers "on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this Commonwealth."

Opponents suggested the measure could be used to outlaw some forms of contraception. Marshall, R-Prince William County, denied that the bill is aimed at birth control.

Approved 62-36 by the Republican-controlled House, the bill goes to the Democrat-controlled Senate, which has killed similar measures in the past.

COMMENTS ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here; comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its websites. Users must follow agreed-upon rules: Be civil, be clean, be on topic; don't attack private individuals, other users or classes of people. Read the full rules here.
- Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the report violation link below it.

All life is sacred. I

Submitted by Choose_Freedom on Tue, 02/08/2011 at 11:24 pm.

All life is sacred. I believe nearly every man or woman who have created a life together and then aborted it wishes they had had the courage to have the child. With 50 million abortions in the US since 1973 there are a lot of people who could share that experience with other young people, but do not do so for reasons only they understand.

Belief or fact?

Submitted by truthseeker on Thu, 02/10/2011 at 10:31 am.

You say " I believe nearly every man or woman who have created a life together and then aborted it wishes they had had the courage to have the child."
Have you ever talked to any of those people to whom you ascribe your own beliefs, or it that statement wishful thinking on your part? Remember, a belief is something that is taken on faith without any concrete facts. Every person is entitled to his or her own beliefs; what they are NOT entitled to is the right to force others to comply with those beliefs.

Disgusting.

Submitted by InHRSince07 on Tue, 02/08/2011 at 6:48 pm.

The "unborn" are not people, are incapable of having the rights of personhood, and should not be treated as people by law. They are incapable of consciousness, and are therefore no more people than a chicken or a rat. And like a chicken or a rat, they have no rights and deserve legal protection except as the property of an actual person.

Really?

Submitted by Wm D Tabor DDS on Tue, 02/08/2011 at 7:08 pm.

How is a baby different a week before birth and a week after, other than air in its lungs?

Why is it legal to kill one but murder to kill the other?

Your comment might hold some weight for the first trimester, and much of the second, but a 6 month fetus very clearly is self conscious and responds appropriately to changes in the intrauterine environment.

At some point between conception and birth, a threshold is crossed where a self aware infant is present in the womb. When, between conception and birth that line is crossed is debatable, but to claim it is not until birth is as much an unsupported article of faith as to claim a full human citizen is present at conception.

When there is doubt, we must err on the side of life.

Ins companies will now have a highly profitable denial excuse

Submitted by mzanony on Wed, 02/09/2011 at 3:56 pm.

For the 3 months a female might not have signs of pregnancy, therefore not seek out testing, and she continues to smoke, do drugs or have illicit behavior - when the baby has possibly been born compromised by 1 or all 3 (plus other) of these possible scenarios, does that mean the baby's health complications will not be covered by medical insurance because the mother was unaware, and thus put the child's health at risk unknowingly? And if the mother was refused prenatal care (for a pre-existing condition) that would have determined her pregnancy in the first place, again, who stands to lose here? Will the insurance company's financial refusal/penalty be placed upon the mother or jointly upon the taxpayer and the mother?

Whose life?

Submitted by truthseeker on Wed, 02/09/2011 at 11:16 am.

The fetus or the mother?

I know quite a few adults...

Submitted by ottoinct on Wed, 02/09/2011 at 8:36 am.

...who aren't self-aware. If only we can stick 'em back in the womb....

One major difference

Submitted by Charles Rhodes on Tue, 02/08/2011 at 10:17 pm.

is that a fetus in the uterus is %100 completely dependent on the woman, and the baby can be cared for by others. Tell me doc, how does someone other the the woman take care of a fetus in utero?

Life

Submitted by Snowfire11 on Wed, 02/09/2011 at 9:52 am.

That unborn fetus would very likely have the ability to survive on its own one week before birth.

"Tell me doc, how does someone other the the woman...

Submitted by Wm D Tabor DDS on Tue, 02/08/2011 at 11:06 pm.

take care of a fetus in utero?"

By not letting someone kill it other than in self defense.

We do this by extending the protections of the rule of law to that fetus when, in the consensus of our legislatures (not the unelected courts) it is determined a self aware, conscious person is present. Science cannot provide that answer definitively as it is a matter of definition, so we make our laws and live by them.

From a moral standpoint, I am sure neither side will be satisfied with that, but under the rule of law, we live by that legislative consensus.