While person hood may start at conception, intelligence in the later development of the Republican species has not been established. There goes all forms of contraception. If anybody thinks the Republicans are gonna survive this are living on planet ignorant. I'm surprised the Republicans didn't have the women pilloried for speaking up, maybe they will pass a stoning bill for those uppity women next.

"maybe they will pass a stoning bill for those uppity women next."

They have the votes. For now.

Kathy Kaplan

"Personhood" -- that is whether there is a human soul -- is a question of theology, and therefore falls within the realm of religion. It clearly lies outside the authority of the General Assembly. There is widespread disagreement among the world's religions about when the soul attaches. Judaism teaches that the soul attaches when the head and shoulders emerge from the womb. Until the mid-19th Century, even the Catholic Church did not teach that a fertilized egg had a soul. Instead the Church believed that "ensoulment" occurred at the time of "quickening," somewhere around the end of the first trimester. Matters of theology must be left to the various religions, and should not be entrusted to politicians. Jefferson knew this. Why doesn't Bob Marshall?

New state slogan: Virginia Is for Lovers of Zygote Personhood! UGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know, if they truly do believe in this absolutely ridiculous, religious bill then we have a bunch of problems besides the obvious ones applying to pregnant women who have miscarriages or want abortions.

Couples who go for fertility treatment and have multiple embryos - murder charges if they don't maintain all embryos ad infinitum, let alone if too many take and they need to reduce. That wouldn't be allowed.

And if human life begins at conception (not that this is my belief, not at all, but they're trying to legislate it to be forced upon me because of their religious beliefs), then logically so does all animal life begin at conception (or are they going to claim it's only sentient beings and then try to legislate that?). Guess those artificially inseminated zoo and wildlife preserve animals' keepers are in big trouble if a fertilization attempt doesn't take or if, heaven sakes, the host animal dies before the baby-to-be is born.

Example court case: Charge: willful death of a zygote elephant. Penalty: ????? What, jail time? You think the world is laughing at Virginia now, just wait.

The only conclusion is that Bob Marshal thinks he's God and therefore is way more knowledgeable then all those religions. The only way for these religions to prove they are relevant is to get into other peoples "business". What better way to do that then to pass laws that directly affect the peoples business. When you put something in between you and God you have outsourced "your will" to "their will" and will suffer the consequences of doing that as we will shortly see here. Perhaps we should move the discussion over to why we as taxpayers are subsidizing any religion through various tax breaks that are given as donations. If churches wish to act as political structures they certainly shouldn't get my tax dollars to vote against my best interests.

The full Senate of Virginia voted this afternoon, 24-14, to "recommit" the bill back to committee. Six Republicans joined 18 Democrats to defeat this bill.

I know that this is a going to be an unpopular position to take, but just ignore the religious implications of personhood and ask yourself the question "Biologically, when does a human become a human?" To me, the answer to that question is clearly at the moment of conception. Terms like fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, adult, senior, corpse -- these are just labels attached to the various stages of human development. The essence of being human is biology.

With that said, I personally don't have a serious problem with abortion right up until the fetus is viable without support outside of the womb. Under my definition, would that be murder? If you are defining murder as the willful taking a human life, then, yes. But then there are lots of willful acts of taking of human life that I don't have a serious problem with.

While I agree then with the conclusion of the Personhood bill, what I do take exception to is the implication and the likely fall out of such a bill. If fetuses are humans, then abortion immediately becomes murder and preventable miscarriages become manslaughter, failure by the mother to take care of her body during pregnancy could be construed as child abuse or child neglect. There are a whole host of other ideas that would need to be addressed for everybody's comfort before I would feel comfortable with codifying "Personhood".

More ludicrous but still, if this [omitted] law should ever pass:
* buying tickets. There are many venues for which EVERYONE present must have a ticket, including infants. This could get expensive. Even harder: if the venue requires even infants to have their own seats.
* carseats. All those manufacturers and government organizations will have to change the wording to specify that infant carseats are not legally required for an embryo or fetus to whom the mother has not yet given birth. Strollers - strengthen weight disclaimers.

Have been mulling over additional implications should the [adjectives omitted so as not to offend sensitive psyches] "personhood" bill ever pass.
* As far as I'm concerned, it's not a human with its own rights, etc. separate from mine until it's out of my body and living and breathing.
* If the government decides just-conceived embryos are now "people" then any pregnant woman should therefore be able to use this to her advantage, just as she would with an actual child, and:
*** get a SSN for that embryo
*** get a tax writeoff for that embryo
*** start saving for college for that embryo in one of those special accounts
*** start savings accounts and stock portfolios for that embryo
*** make donations - including political donations, possibly - on that embryo's behalf
*** ride in the HOV-2 lanes by herself (plus embryo) - and HOV-3 lanes if even one other actual human is in the car, INCLUDING if she's pregnant with twins, triplets, or more

It also makes one wonder whether having sex with your pregnant wife wouldn't make both parties guilty of child sexual abuse.

Would having ONE drink while pregnant make a woman guilty of serving alcohol to a minor?

Would it be illegal for a pregnant woman to view pornography as contributing to the delinquency of a minor?

Shelved til 2013 - that is shocker - election time and uproar runs through VA!!! We have bigger issues in the state. Leave women alone and more over leave their body alone. Unless invited its unwanted.

Smart move! Wait until next year! Those bills will pass!!!!! Wrong Mr. Gibson, I am not "religious", but abortion is wrong!!!

Across the blog sphere it has been duly noted that in order for those bills to be aborted we will need to abort the careers of the politicians who brought this clown circus to our towns and states. The mobilization has begun, the forces of truth will win. When we are united in our quest for freedom from religious tyranny nothing can stop us. This is our Arab spring... hear freedom roar!

The Republicans only care about a woman's rights until she is born. The moment she pops out of the womb, she's out of luck.

I still don't understand how a party that claims the government is too intrusive when it comes to financial, property, and environmental issues is trying to get government to be even more intrusive when it comes to people's private lives and medical decisions.

Radical Republicans are being forced to wait until after the 2012 election before pushing their agenda of invasive procedures and regulations. Clearly, we cannot afford to hand them the Presidency and our liberty.

A. Will Radle, Jr.
Democratic VA8 Candidate
www.VA8.com

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the effect on redistricting. Every pregnant woman will count as two (at least).

And every woman of childbearing age who's had sex recently *might* be pregnant - shall we count them as 1 and 3/5 person? 1.21479? Will Senator Vogel and Delegate Marshall be prepared with statistics on the number of sexual encounters that result in pregnancy?

I've voiced my opinions on many issues on this site, but none have made me feel as upset, violated, and infuriated, as these two bills that the Conservatives aim to push through the system. I have always been and always will be a huge feminist and adamantly Pro-Choice, but up until this point, I've also stayed out of debates such as these. But under the circumstances, I will stay silent no more. No matter what delusions the GOP is under, WE [WOMEN] ARE PEOPLE, TOO, AND WE DESERVE AND EXPECT TO HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES AS EVERYONE ELSE IN THIS COMMONWEALTH, whether they be men, children, or fetuses. By just drafting this bill, the creators of these unnecessary regulations have, in essence, already overturned part of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. What's next? The Nineteenth Amendment repealed? The return of the 3/5ths Compromise? I don't want to be around to find out. As stated in earlier comments, some Conservatives in today's society are just plain hypocritical, opting for less government regulation in most matters, but still thinking that they have the right to exercise unneeded and uncalled for control of women's personal and medical decisions. Who drafted and voted for this bill? A bunch of men. Who will be affected the most by this law, assuming it passes? Women. The protestors in Richmond last week had the right idea. We need to fight this. Now.