The Daily Sentinel

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Logout|My Dashboard

McGill to try again on abortion

Posted: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 9:23 am

State Sen. Shadrack McGill said he plans to try again to push pro-life bills in the Legislature.

“Did you know you can be charged up to $250,000 for destroying an eagle egg, but you can destroy babies in the womb?” McGill asked this week during an interview with the Times-Journal.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?



Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.


    A subscription service is required to post comments.

  • GordonWayneWatts posted at 12:44 am on Fri, Feb 8, 2013.

    GordonWayneWatts Posts: 1

    Your senator asked: “So my question concerning aborted babies is, where do they go [when they die]...”
    Well, I'm Protestant & don't believe in purgatory.
    But, the baby was unable to exercise faith, and there ARE no exceptions in Scripture here. (King David's statement, even were it true, would only suggest David goes to his child -to the grave.)
    Lastly, God would not send the child to hades, as this would violate His long-standing precedent to be unbiased and afford a 'fair chance' to accept. (Plus, God would not force a person to believe: This would be rape; faith can only happen via free will.)
    So, where's the baby go? Well, to heaven -for the time being - but (and you can verify this is possible in Scripture), the children reunite with the parents in the 1,000-year Millennium of the Christ/King JESUS, and will live in real bodies (people live to be a hundred & die in some cases) and with Free Will (note the rebellion in Revelation at the end of the millennium period = "Free Will.")
    Also, even the ANGELS who WERE in heaven were not stripped of free will: Proof of that: one-third of them exercises it wrongly & fell (into demons). This would not be giving the kids a 2nd chance: this would be their 1st. And, it's appointed ONCE to die -and thereafter the judgment (Heb 9:27), but who's to say *this* is not God's judgment for the kids? Go to Amazon and get the book "When Babies Die: Where do they Go?" in either Kindle or paperback for further Scripture on this point.
    So, if even the angels who were in heaven had free will (as do you & I), why would God make the babies robots/puppets like a dog or cat -without free will? This would be repulsive: For man was created in the image of a God who has free will.

  • TWERPY1 posted at 3:49 pm on Thu, Feb 7, 2013.

    TWERPY1 Posts: 298

    Oh, and study some science, man! There are these tumors called teratomas which are capable of growing teeth, hair, organs including beating hearts, limbs, etc. If left untreated, these teratomas can cause various cancers. Just because it has a beating heart, teeth, hair, limbs, or other organs, it doesn't make it a person.

  • TWERPY1 posted at 3:46 pm on Thu, Feb 7, 2013.

    TWERPY1 Posts: 298

    If more Christians would actually READ their Bibles instead of just going by what their religion teaches them, I think this world would be a better place.

  • TWERPY1 posted at 3:44 pm on Thu, Feb 7, 2013.

    TWERPY1 Posts: 298

    Hey, speaking of the Bible, somebody pointed out to me the other day some verses in Numbers where it looks like God was authorizing abortions of women who become pregnant by men who are not their husbands. The high priest is to give the woman "bitter water" and if she's "pure" she'll suffer no ill effects. However if she's "unclean," (read "pregnant") she'll go through fierce agony. From what my friend has studied about this "bitter water," it causes miscarriages.

  • JanL posted at 1:22 pm on Thu, Feb 7, 2013.

    JanL Posts: 1

    Ezekiel 37: 5&6- “Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I shall lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.”

    Sounds to me that according to the Bible, life does not begin until the "child" takes his/her first breath, not at conception!

    And, no, a fetus does not "breath" while in the womb. Oxygen is carried to the fetus via umbilical cord ... there is not breath taken until the child exits the womb.

    And what ever happened to separation of church and state?

    Go back to trying to be a Senator (and I use that title loosely) and get out of matters that don't concern you in the least. Women are perfectly capable of making decisions about their bodies and their families.!!!

  • Ijpwrites posted at 4:26 pm on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.

    Ijpwrites Posts: 1

    MercifuI heavens! This benighted feIIow has no idea what he is taIking about-in vitro aIready resuIts in muItipIe births-his suggested Iaw wouId put such women at risk of death and the fetuses as weII, aII in the name of "right to Iife" of ceIIs in a gIass dish-- If he paid nearIy as much attention to chiidren aIready alive and Iiving in poverty in AIabama, we'd be getting somewhere-

  • Publius posted at 4:34 pm on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.

    Publius Posts: 8

    I suggest Shad spend time trying to do his job and quit concentrating on reversing a forty year old Supreme Court decision. I understand that he is desperate for votes in the next election and bringing up every controversial/ emotional issue might gain a few from people are ill informed or not informed at all.

    Shad, you swore/affirmed an oath to God that you would support the Constitution of the United States. If faithfully following that oath is such a problem, maybe you should resign now and allow someone who isn’t quite so hypocritical to do the job at which you have failed miserably.

  • REDLEADER posted at 2:18 pm on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.

    REDLEADER Posts: 12

    The more Shad talks the more ignorant he seems

  • TWERPY1 posted at 10:53 am on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.

    TWERPY1 Posts: 298

    Oh, and the scripture that Shad quoted was not Psalms. It was Jeremiah 1:5 and God was specifically talking to the prophet Jeremiah and God said, " Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

    before you were born I set you apart;

    I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” He was not speaking about all babies in general. If he were, please note "BEFORE I formed you in the womb." The word "BEFORE" is key. If you want to take it THAT literally, you better be sure to make s p e r m a protected species. Sound ridiculous? Well so you do, Shad.

  • TWERPY1 posted at 10:40 am on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.

    TWERPY1 Posts: 298

    Eagles are an endangered species. Humans are not.

    Embryos are not people. The more Shad talks the more ignorant he seems.

    Protecting embryos is stupid. Most special needs babies are born to mothers who could not afford abortions and they are the same mothers who did not care for themselves during pregnancy. 9 out of 10 severely retarded children are on some form of Government Assistance and they are DRAINING our tax dollars. It's much cheaper to abort the embryos before they become children who live in desolate conditions and are unable to grow into contributing members of society. Plus no woman should be forced to carry a child to term if she does not want to. Pregnancy, childbirth, and post-partum are torture. I couldn't imagine going through all that if I didn't love my kids.