Kasich vetoes heartbeat bill; bans 20wk abortions to challenge Roe v. Wade

With legal fight during “Trumpmania,” conservatives see potential for abortion laws.


Read the whole story

 

[a_v_s]

Also, one problem with banning 20wk abortions, is that genetic testing doesn't uncover all problems with development. Those are worked out at your 20wk ultrasound. If you ban 20wk abortions, you are basically saying you are going to force women to bring to term a baby that may not even make it (which causes emotional stress), and/or you are forcing them to raise a child with all sorts of birth defects. While that may be a morality issue of whether or not you should terminate based on birth defects, but if you wanted to go that route, they should ban genetic testing altogether, because hey, it could be construed as immoral to terminate a baby, just because they have trisomy-18, so the test should be illegal, amirite?

 

[Ronin007]

krimhorn[/url]":2wc3n04t]

UltimateLemon[/url]":2wc3n04t]
Rise of Sharia law in western country unfolding before our eyes.

Christian Law. And that's A-OK by them fine folks that are afeared of Sharia Law.

"pot meet kettle" would probably go over their heads.

 

[JBforum]

A part of me hopes that in states where abortion becomes illegal it becomes a thing where teens start crazy amounts of homosexual sex to avoid pregnancy. Just to watch heads explode.

 

[hazmatzak]

irishScott[/url]":2794ie7e]One of the more interesting points Trump accidentally made

No, he still has a perfect record: he was wrong.

In some states it is technically legal to have an abortion at any point up until birth. So in such states it's possible that, over the span of a day, killing the same entity can go from "aborting the fetus" to "euthanizing an infant"

The intervening event would be birth. No reputable doctor performs an abortion at 39 weeks (or 38, 37...). Late in pregnancy, you'd either induce labor or perform a C-section. You now have a baby -- clearly a "person" under the law .

More importantly, no sane woman does this on a whim at the end of a healthy pregnancy. In the one-in-a-billion chance that she might, you've got a bigger problem: force the woman to deliver, and then let them take the baby home? Force delivery and take the baby away?

I'm generally pro-abortion, but having no limits on when an abortion can be done results in the same cognitive dissonance as child predator laws. Two people who are 17 years, 364 days old have sex and they're convicted of statutory rape, forced to register as sex offenders for life. 24 hours later they're grown adults and can fuck however they want free of consequences.

So unless we're going to start allowing parents to euthanize newborns at will, there's going to have to be a limit somewhere.

Seems like this is backwards. The registry problem is because of the bright line at 18. Ideally a competent judge or panel could decide based on the particulars of the case, considering the entire variety of cases, whether or not they should be forced to register. That would be the most fair, even if you might personally disagree with some decisions (for whatever that's worth).

In the same way, the decision for terminating the pregnancy should be between the mother and father in consultation with their doctor and anyone else they choose. No bright lines drawn by politicians.

 

[Sajuuk]

Fiendish[/url]":3eybmi6k]I may never understand the mental landscape of the person who decides to ban abortions without understanding the harm to the child, the parent, and to society of birthing unwanted children under duress.

Because they don't really give a shit about kids, they care about punishing women for having...gasp....sexy times, how dare they! If they actually cared about stopping abortions they would be in favor of the two most effective ways to prevent it: comprehensive sex ed and contraception. If they actually cared about children, they would be for comprehensive social safety nets. The same people who are pro-life are also against any of that.

 

[RuhRoh]

I'll support abortion when men have the same right as women... not to be forced to be a father/mother.

The father should get the same amount of time decide as the mother had.

And, no, he doesn't get to force her to have an abortion procedure on her... he simply get to opt out of fatherhood.

This doesn't establish full equity, because she can still abort the baby against his wishes... but until we have a uterine replicator it is as close as we can get to true equality.

Until then, I am anti-abortion, not pro-life.

--

This is probably the worst argument against abortion I've ever read, including the one involving a beardy sky man. You're literally arguing that a child should be born to a couple who don't want a child, because allowing them to abort would be unfair to the man. I don't even....

If you had been alive in the 1860's, you'd be arguing for enslavement of white people instead of freedom for all, because freeing the slaves would be unfair to the plantation owners. That's how f*cked up your argument is -- you want to f*ck up the lives of more people in the name of "equality", because you feel slighted by society somehow. You should be ashamed of having typed such crap.

 

[Cherlindrea]

Fiendish[/url]":nqd2sxck]I may never understand the mental landscape of the person who decides to ban abortions without understanding the harm to the child, the parent, and to society of birthing unwanted children under duress.

My husband and I were discussing this after the article announcing the attempt to sneak in the heartbeat ban. Given that this 20-week law does not allow exceptions for cases of rape or incest, I would like to have every supporter of these bills put on a registration. These supporters then must adopt any unwanted children forced to be born by women that would have had legal abortions if not for this legislation. The people on the registrar will also have to contribute higher amounts of taxes to Medicare and counseling services to help women forced to carry out these pregnancies recover from any trauma experienced.

If rape and incest were always allowed as exceptions in these bans, I can't say as I would care all too much. But once those exceptions are not included, all bets are off with me. You don't fuck with women who have been violated in that way. I want to see these self-righteous assholes put their money where their preaching-hole is.

Edited for phone syntax.

 

[pond]

DManatunga[/url]":1ohw7y0r]Abortion is a complicated issue and in no way is any internet comment I write is going to solve it. That said, I'm incredibly sick and tired of people ignoring actual science or bringing false science into arguments. Part of me wishes that people who choose to ignore majority science findings are forced to do that for everything. Don't believe in global warming. Fine, you can't use the internet cause it is another kooky thing brought by those science loving folks.

I disagree. Abortion is a super simple issue: bodily autonomy.

If another human (a sweet little child, a father or five, a precious old lady) is about to die unless you donate, say, bone marrow, should you be required by law to act as donor? Jailed or forced to go through with it if you refuse? No matter the results on your health?

If a fetus is about to die unless you donate your body as a host for 9 months, should you be required by law to do it anyways? Even if you don't want to, or it risks your health? If the answer to the first question is no, the answer to this one should be easy.

 

[truthyboy15]

the united states where the rich only care about a baby being delivered but afterwards not giving a damn if it dies.

 

[MattEvansC3]

CrustaceanSoup[/url]":37c76jfr]

nosensewhatsoever[/url]":37c76jfr]

bthylafh[/url]":37c76jfr]Understanding doesn't matter - they don't care. If they didn't want abortions they wouldn't push their regressive abstinence-only bullshit. It's about control.

Bullcrap. Abstinence is 100% sure-fire to make sure you don't need an abortion. Yes, it's overly simplistic, doesn't take into account that many people will have sex regardless, and ignores that couples need alternative methods. But saying they don't care and that it's only about control is a strawman argument, and only paints you in an extremist corner.

It's known that abstinence-only education doesn't work, and doesn't reduce abortion or unplanned pregnancy rates. It's an established fact. Continuing to push for it despite that knowledge and using that perfect ideal world technicality as an excuse is like screaming that the sky is black in the daytime because it would be if not for the atmosphere. It's ridiculous to the point of disingenuity.

Let's also not forget that we are less than two weeks away from celebrating that one time abstinence didn't work.

 

[gulthaw]

truthyboy15[/url]":2vnysoob]the united states where the rich only care about a baby being delivered but afterwards not giving a damn if it dies.

Sadly, not the only place.

From 1974 to 1988 Spain was so fkd in that department that it was known people (specially rich people) would go to London or Wales to get abortions, didn't care about those who couldn't afford it.

Nowadays we are a bit better on regulations though, but the current right-wing party is trying to undo everything we gained in that department and is taking the same approach.

I'll never understand the hypocrisy though; this people so religious, defenders of the "typical family" are always the first to cheat, lie and sin.

 

[pond]

RuhRoh[/url]":1zyt9tnd]

I'll support abortion when men have the same right as women... not to be forced to be a father/mother.

The father should get the same amount of time decide as the mother had.

And, no, he doesn't get to force her to have an abortion procedure on her... he simply get to opt out of fatherhood.

This doesn't establish full equity, because she can still abort the baby against his wishes... but until we have a uterine replicator it is as close as we can get to true equality.

Until then, I am anti-abortion, not pro-life.

--

This is probably the worst argument against abortion I've ever read, including the one involving a beardy sky man. You're literally arguing that a child should be born to a couple who don't want a child, because allowing them to abort would be unfair to the man. I don't even....

If you had been alive in the 1860's, you'd be arguing for enslavement of white people instead of freedom for all, because freeing the slaves would be unfair to the plantation owners. That's how f*cked up your argument is -- you want to f*ck up the lives of more people in the name of "equality", because you feel slighted by society somehow. You should be ashamed of having typed such crap.

It's the standard MRA argument against abortion, and just as stupid as one should expect.

 

[RuhRoh]

All this talk about the health of the mother or doing the unborn a favor so they won't have to suffer bad , uncaring parents as the main reason for post 20 week abortion is BS. Let's just be honest about it and call it what it is. It's a meat-space Ctrl-Z (undo). Yes, there are some cases of the mother's physical condition being a real issue, but that is only a small portion of abortions.

Except, per the article:

Currently, only around 1 percent of abortions in the country occur after the 20-week point, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. In Ohio, only 145 of the nearly 21,000 abortions performed last year occurred after 20 weeks. Around 90 percent of abortions in the country occur at 13 weeks or earlier, with 65 percent occurring at or before the 8th week. Later abortions are often due to medical complications or access issues.

The majority of abortions (including "Ctrl-Z" abortions) are done much earlier than 20 weeks. The exceptions tend to be:
* "access issues" -- Abortions that would have been performed sooner had lawmakers not made it difficult for the woman to have the abortion.
* "medical complications" -- That "health of the mother" thing you were talking about.

So, with regard to your argument that post 20 week abortions are just a Ctrl-Z, you're wrong.

The vast majority of abortions are done as a measure of convenience. And I really don't care either way, whatever most folks want is fine with me. But let's at least stop the dishonesty and call it what it is. Then we can have a real conversation about the issue.

That may be true, but you you're no longer talking about the post 20 week abortions, you're talking about abortions as a whole. Therefore the second paragraph of your comment does not support the first. There may be a discussion to be had about abortions being for convenience, but your argument about post 20 week abortion "BS" does not stand.

 

[scrambledhelix]

The one thing I notice is always missing from these debates about the nature of personhood and our legal definition for when that "vests" on an entity, is the question of how many weeks a corporation takes to gestate and whether we're allowed to abort them before they're viable.


Harrumph.

 

[RuhRoh]

RuhRoh[/url]":8ef3shag]

I'll support abortion when men have the same right as women... not to be forced to be a father/mother.

The father should get the same amount of time decide as the mother had.

And, no, he doesn't get to force her to have an abortion procedure on her... he simply get to opt out of fatherhood.

This doesn't establish full equity, because she can still abort the baby against his wishes... but until we have a uterine replicator it is as close as we can get to true equality.

Until then, I am anti-abortion, not pro-life.

--

This is probably the worst argument against abortion I've ever read, including the one involving a beardy sky man. You're literally arguing that a child should be born to a couple who don't want a child, because allowing them to abort would be unfair to the man. I don't even....

If you had been alive in the 1860's, you'd be arguing for enslavement of white people instead of freedom for all, because freeing the slaves would be unfair to the plantation owners. That's how f*cked up your argument is -- you want to f*ck up the lives of more people in the name of "equality", because you feel slighted by society somehow. You should be ashamed of having typed such crap.

It's the standard MRA argument against abortion, and just as stupid as one should expect.

I know, but recent history has shown me that simply ignoring or mocking people with crazy arguments doesn't do any good. They need to be shown just how terrible their arguments are. That's not to say it'll do any good, but ignoring/mocking sure as hell didn't get it done.

 

[pond]

RuhRoh[/url]":l25gx6p2]

RuhRoh[/url]":l25gx6p2]

I'll support abortion when men have the same right as women... not to be forced to be a father/mother.

The father should get the same amount of time decide as the mother had.

And, no, he doesn't get to force her to have an abortion procedure on her... he simply get to opt out of fatherhood.

This doesn't establish full equity, because she can still abort the baby against his wishes... but until we have a uterine replicator it is as close as we can get to true equality.

Until then, I am anti-abortion, not pro-life.

--

This is probably the worst argument against abortion I've ever read, including the one involving a beardy sky man. You're literally arguing that a child should be born to a couple who don't want a child, because allowing them to abort would be unfair to the man. I don't even....

If you had been alive in the 1860's, you'd be arguing for enslavement of white people instead of freedom for all, because freeing the slaves would be unfair to the plantation owners. That's how f*cked up your argument is -- you want to f*ck up the lives of more people in the name of "equality", because you feel slighted by society somehow. You should be ashamed of having typed such crap.

It's the standard MRA argument against abortion, and just as stupid as one should expect.

I know, but recent history has shown me that simply ignoring or mocking people with crazy arguments doesn't do any good. They need to be shown just how terrible their arguments are. That's not to say it'll do any good, but ignoring/mocking sure as hell didn't get it done.

Thanks for taking the fight, friend. You just seemed so bewildered by the argument I wanted to explain where it's (usually) coming from.

 

[truthyboy15]

gulthaw[/url]":2qau4ruv]

truthyboy15[/url]":2qau4ruv]the united states where the rich only care about a baby being delivered but afterwards not giving a damn if it dies.

Sadly, not the only place.

From 1974 to 1988 Spain was so fkd in that department that it was known people (specially rich people) would go to London or Wales to get abortions, didn't care about those who couldn't afford it.

Nowadays we are a bit better on regulations though, but the current right-wing party is trying to undo everything we gained in that department and is taking the same approach.

I'll never understand the hypocrisy though; this people so religious, defenders of the "typical family" are always the first to cheat, lie and sin.

I'm not trying to be a fuckwad its just that no one is going to eliminate abortion from the US even if you ban it. case in point: prohibition led to many speakeasies and eventually to the reinstatement to legal alcohol.

 

[Adonis91]

Ushio[/url]":37r9rxsc]How the fuck in 2016 is abortion still a thing in a developed nation? Aren't there enough different contraceptives out there? or are Americans just that oblivious?

Click on this link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

Read the short entry. Look carefully at the pictures and consider carefully the life-expectancy of this infant. Imagine now you are the mother of that child and do not want the baby. Can you tell me in a straight face it would be wrong to abort it and that the women should have to go through the traumatic 9 months of pregnancy knowing full well the outcome? If your answer is yes, you're a fucking idiot.

 

[SixDegrees]

With legal fight during “Trumpmania,” conservatives see potential for abortion laws.

Just a nit: these aren't conservatives. Conservatism holds small, constrained government that keeps its nose out of its citizens business to the greatest degree possible as a core value. An actual conservative would never support gross overreach such as this.

But the conservative movement in the US was overtaken, gutted, and throttled by theocrats decades ago, and the only thing left of it as a political movement is the name, which is now a mockery of the principles it once represented.

These are bible thumping assholes, not conservatives, despite what they call themselves. And they, along with the rest of the evangelical movement, represent the most serious existential threat to the nation the US has ever faced.

 

[SixDegrees]

truthyboy15[/url]":2318a73x]

gulthaw[/url]":2318a73x]

truthyboy15[/url]":2318a73x]the united states where the rich only care about a baby being delivered but afterwards not giving a damn if it dies.

Sadly, not the only place.

From 1974 to 1988 Spain was so fkd in that department that it was known people (specially rich people) would go to London or Wales to get abortions, didn't care about those who couldn't afford it.

Nowadays we are a bit better on regulations though, but the current right-wing party is trying to undo everything we gained in that department and is taking the same approach.

I'll never understand the hypocrisy though; this people so religious, defenders of the "typical family" are always the first to cheat, lie and sin.

I'm not trying to be a fuckwad its just that no one is going to eliminate abortion from the US even if you ban it. case in point: prohibition led to many speakeasies and eventually to the reinstatement to legal alcohol.

OK. So it'll just be more dangerous to get one, and - in much of the nation - impossible to do so in the first place. Because "just go to another state" simply isn't an option for huge numbers of patients.

 

[truthyboy15]

SixDegrees[/url]":23d63u8z]

truthyboy15[/url]":23d63u8z]

gulthaw[/url]":23d63u8z]

truthyboy15[/url]":23d63u8z]the united states where the rich only care about a baby being delivered but afterwards not giving a damn if it dies.

Sadly, not the only place.

From 1974 to 1988 Spain was so fkd in that department that it was known people (specially rich people) would go to London or Wales to get abortions, didn't care about those who couldn't afford it.

Nowadays we are a bit better on regulations though, but the current right-wing party is trying to undo everything we gained in that department and is taking the same approach.

I'll never understand the hypocrisy though; this people so religious, defenders of the "typical family" are always the first to cheat, lie and sin.

I'm not trying to be a fuckwad its just that no one is going to eliminate abortion from the US even if you ban it. case in point: prohibition led to many speakeasies and eventually to the reinstatement to legal alcohol.

OK. So it'll just be more dangerous to get one, and - in much of the nation - impossible to do so in the first place. Because "just go to another state" simply isn't an option for huge numbers of patients.

abortion basically is impossible to obtain unless you go somewhere else whether to a another city or state except soon the only way to get one will be a back alley abortion which like you said means more deaths.

 

[SixDegrees]

Ushio[/url]":897pm89z]How the fuck in 2016 is abortion still a thing in a developed nation? Aren't there enough different contraceptives out there? or are Americans just that oblivious?

- There is no contraceptive that is 100% effective.

- The same idiots trying to ban abortion put every bit as much effort into banning contraceptives.

 

[truthyboy15]

SixDegrees[/url]":3r4hai3w]

Ushio[/url]":3r4hai3w]How the fuck in 2016 is abortion still a thing in a developed nation? Aren't there enough different contraceptives out there? or are Americans just that oblivious?

- There is no contraceptive that is 100% effective.

- The same idiots trying to ban abortion put every bit as much effort into banning contraceptives.

well contraceptives = abortion to republicans. funny enough I don't see republicans trying to outlaw condoms.

 

[SixDegrees]

truthyboy15[/url]":2bnrxq19]

SixDegrees[/url]":2bnrxq19]

Ushio[/url]":2bnrxq19]How the fuck in 2016 is abortion still a thing in a developed nation? Aren't there enough different contraceptives out there? or are Americans just that oblivious?

- There is no contraceptive that is 100% effective.

- The same idiots trying to ban abortion put every bit as much effort into banning contraceptives.

well contraceptives = abortion to republicans. funny enough I don't see republicans trying to outlaw condoms.

To be fair, they tore their hair and rent their garments around here when drugstores started putting condoms out on the display floor, instead of keeping them behind the counter and forcing customers to ask for them. Look for moves to hide them again and make them inaccessible as the theocrats become emboldened.

 

[truthyboy15]

SixDegrees[/url]":1odirsxt]

truthyboy15[/url]":1odirsxt]

SixDegrees[/url]":1odirsxt]

Ushio[/url]":1odirsxt]How the fuck in 2016 is abortion still a thing in a developed nation? Aren't there enough different contraceptives out there? or are Americans just that oblivious?

- There is no contraceptive that is 100% effective.

- The same idiots trying to ban abortion put every bit as much effort into banning contraceptives.

well contraceptives = abortion to republicans. funny enough I don't see republicans trying to outlaw condoms.

To be fair, they tore their hair and rent their garments around here when drugstores started putting condoms out on the display floor, instead of keeping them behind the counter and forcing customers to ask for them. Look for moves to hide them again and make them inaccessible as the theocrats become emboldened.

You know if republicans truly are theocrats then they are choosing to ignore many parts of the good book such as do no harm, help the less fortunate, etc

 

[Deleted member 250988]

Congratulations, as of January you will have a government that wants to return to the medieval era of illegal abortions. Because women will get abortions one way or the other, history has proven this.

Some may not risk it, but will be unable to care for children. Welcome to your shitty life, because the politicians that forced you to be born are the same ones that made sure you would grow up in poverty.

The USA is going to be no better than a third world country.

Oh by the way, the middle east used to be the leader in scientific research end the pinnacle of culture, until the islamic 'scholars' deemed science incompatible with their religion. It's now one of the most backwards uneducated areas of the world. Take a good look at your future USA.

 

[panton41]

Ozmodan[/url]":blk8odtg]Don't know what all the whining is about. The court has 5 votes right now that will make this law unconstitutional.

If you think about it, 24 weeks is the current point at which the Supreme court will bend. Hospitals can keep most fetuses at this point alive, hence it does meet the viable criteria.

24 weeks is 6 months, if you can't make up your mind to have an abortion in that period of time you have issues.

If you look at adoption agencies, there are a lot more parents looking for babies than their are babies available.

If you look at adoption agencies, there's a lot more older children taken from broken and abusive homes from parents who never wanted them to begin who are desperate to be adopted by a loving, stable family than there are people looking for them.

 

[Eldorito]

a_v_s[/url]":5ckmuj8h]Also, one problem with banning 20wk abortions, is that genetic testing doesn't uncover all problems with development. Those are worked out at your 20wk ultrasound. If you ban 20wk abortions, you are basically saying you are going to force women to bring to term a baby that may not even make it (which causes emotional stress), and/or you are forcing them to raise a child with all sorts of birth defects. While that may be a morality issue of whether or not you should terminate based on birth defects, but if you wanted to go that route, they should ban genetic testing altogether, because hey, it could be construed as immoral to terminate a baby, just because they have trisomy-18, so the test should be illegal, amirite?

And this isn't even theoretical, there are cases where a woman is required to carry a dying child within her body, as it's still "alive" and doesn't pose a risk to the mothers life. So that's the law, it stays in until the baby dies, then they can induce labour and take it out.

Imagine spending days or weeks with a dying baby inside you. The extreme mental anguish that would cause and the utter cruelty simply because some morons don't want to accept that abortion isn't the worst thing in the world is just inhumane.

 

[maximara]

Fiendish[/url]":fhsoq2zs]I may never understand the mental landscape of the person who decides to ban abortions without understanding the harm to the child, the parent, and to society of birthing unwanted children under duress.

Its about control with religion or pseudoscience as a fig leaf to justify it.

In fact, if you actually read the Bible you will find out it doesn't consider children people until a month AFTER they are born (Leviticus 27:6, Numbers 3:15-16)

It was even God's law to kill a pregnant woman if she broke some law (Genesis 38:24)

Also God himself will cause abortions (Hosea 9:14, Hosea 9:16, Numbers 5:21-28) or kill children (2 Samuel 12:14)

Finally there is Exodus 21:22–25 which spells out that if a woman aborts her child as result men fighting each other all her husband is titled to is a fine.

 

[Tonkaman]

ceb[/url]":10gwudnn]

UltimateLemon[/url]":10gwudnn]

ritesh_laud[/url]":10gwudnn]
Still others believe that no human being has the natural right to decide on life or death for any other human being. That is, the belief that not a single human being in the history of the world has ever actually had the right to end the life of any other human being. Millions have done so, obviously, but that doesn't connote a natural human right that a modern national constitution should necessarily enshrine.

Death penalty has been in history for a very, VERY long time. Funnily enough, something that Republicans traditionally had support for.

The opinions on this topic, from both sides, has always been a headscratcher for me. I don't know why it's so hard to understand. The god the the bible kills, and tells his followers to kill, people (men, women, and children) left and right. The commandment "thou shalt not kill" obviously isn't a blanket prohibition on taking another's life. It means "thou shalt not murder", i.e. "unjustly" take another's life. Therefore, someone who is anti-abortion but pro-death penalty (i.e. against taking an "innocent life", but has no problem taking the life of someone who is guilty of heinous crimes) is not being hypocritical. They're being perfectly consistent with their religious beliefs.

(Unfortunately I always feel I have to point out that I'm a pro-abortion atheist at this point.)

Edit: Couple of "taken"'s should have been "taking"'s.

I should point out there is some variation on what "unjustly" means. The Catholic position is that everything outside of self-defense is unjust, and therefore murder. Generally it's only the evangelicals that support the death penalty and are also against abortion. According to the Catechism, even war is only acceptable in self-defense and only after all other means to avoid war have been attempted. I give Catholics points for being consistent, while the others are the hypocrites.

 

[Geebs]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":2lfcu8m5]

breze[/url]":2lfcu8m5]The distinction is entirely arbitrary. A human is made up of cells. These cells are alive while the human is an egg, and alive when they meet up with Mr Sperm, and alive while they grow. Any attempts to draw a line are actually attempts to abuse science.

I like to think that my position is nuanced because it is informed. I disagree that "a human" can be drawn back to the pre-conception stage to a separate ovum and a separate sperm. Those two disparate organisms are not "a human," in fact neither has a full suite of the human genome. It's also somewhat philosophically absurd to propose that the same being can exist in two separate, biologically distinct instances at the exact same time. It's also not useful to consider a human being to consist merely of an unfertilized ovum waiting for a fresh infusion of chromosome bits.

So for me, the life of "a human" does indeed start with conception and I don't think it's reasonable to call this an arbitrary distinction. For the purposes of abortion debate, I draw a distinction between a human and "a person," though, and a newly-minted embryo meets the definition of the former but not the latter. A person, to me, does not have a brain comparable to that of a frog.

You're imposing an arbitrary cutoff for intelligence, though, aren't you? That goes into some dark, eugenic, places very quickly. You're also ignoring the potential of an embryo; a frog will stay a frog, an embryo will become a person.

24 weeks is the only scientifically-justified cut-off, although advances in neonatal medicine may change that in future. "Personhood" is a social construct and of minimal value.

 

[Static and Noise]

h0nda[/url]":7prlol2z]I can see why the ability to abort a fetus at any stage of development is so precious to you liberals posting on this topic, It`s because you are part of the "ME" generation. All you are concerned about is me, myself and I. You don`t give any consideration to the possible consequences of your actions, it`s called lack of personal responsibility. With you libs it`s always someone else`s fault. If I get pregnant it`s because contraceptives are too hard to get, I have to take a pill everyday (not any more), condoms don`t feel right or I`m too embarrassed to purchase them, I was too drunk, I was high, heat of the moment, etc... Do you see a pattern here, excuses, excuses, excuses. Access to contraceptives has never been easier and yet the rate of unwanted pregnancies and abortions continue to increase. Why? Lack of personal responsibility.

I am happy Kasich vetoed the Heartbeat Bill, (was a poorly written bill), and put a stop to abortions past the 20 wk mark. Have any of you, that advocate abortion at any stage of pregnancy, every looked at actual photos of a fetus at 20 wks of development, and before. The fetus is fully formed, moving, can feel pain and is definitely a miniature version of a human being. Premature babies have survived at 21 wks, so to say they are not sentient human beings is false.

The fact that you are able to post about the abortion issue at all is because your mothers decided to keep their pregnancy when they could have aborted it. Perhaps they made the wrong decision?

The number of abortions in the US has been steadily decreasing since the 1980s. Despite the population growing.

So your whole rant is based upon a lie, to begin with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_ ... ted_States

 

[Messy]

Saint[/url]"t53vkdt]Funny how they don't mind State sponsored murder of criminals who are likely in a lot of pain through their 45+ minute "lethal" injection.

I'd like clarify that people receiving the death penalty have earned it through their own actions - according to the law. So comparing the two situations... you're not going to win over/convince any right-to-lifers about anything if you can't even speak their language.

That being said, i find lethal injection horrible and quite frankly one of those going-around-your-elbow-to-get-to-your-ass situations (same with electric chair). What's wrong with something swift, simple, and final? Captive bolt, anyone? No, i'm not joking.

 

[Eldorito]

h0nda[/url]":qhyraw0e]I can see why the ability to abort a fetus at any stage of development is so precious to you liberals posting on this topic, It`s because you are part of the "ME" generation. All you are concerned about is me, myself and I. You don`t give any consideration to the possible consequences of your actions, it`s called lack of personal responsibility. With you libs it`s always someone else`s fault. If I get pregnant it`s because contraceptives are too hard to get, I have to take a pill everyday (not any more), condoms don`t feel right or I`m too embarrassed to purchase them, I was too drunk, I was high, heat of the moment, etc... Do you see a pattern here, excuses, excuses, excuses. Access to contraceptives has never been easier and yet the rate of unwanted pregnancies and abortions continue to increase. Why? Lack of personal responsibility.

Aren't you American? What ever happened to personal rights, the government not forcing itself upon you, freedom to speech, liberty and all that jazz? Why the shit is the government defining personal actions and the decisions of families?

Personally, abortion would be a hugely difficult decision for myself and my partner. But, should it ever happen (I've made it to my 30's without it being an issue), it would be one WE would want to make.

You want the "ME" generation? Try talking to the people who built up masses of wealth on the backs of bubbles and the generation of greenhouse gasses, who vote to protect obese social securities and tell me they weren't just looking out for themselves.

I am happy Kasich vetoed the Heartbeat Bill, (was a poorly written bill), and put a stop to abortions past the 20 wk mark. Have any of you, that advocate abortion at any stage of pregnancy, every looked at actual photos of a fetus at 20 wks of development, and before. The fetus is fully formed, moving, can feel pain and is definitely a miniature version of a human being. Premature babies have survived at 21 wks, so to say they are not sentient human beings is false.

This is a pretty rubbish emotional argument. The vast majority of abortions happen before 20 weeks, the ones that happen afterwards are usually people who were the victim of rape that are only coming to terms with it or situations where the baby could potentially die/won't live/could harm the health of the mother. You can pretend that you're the defender of life but it's a much, much more complicated situation than that.

The fact that you are able to post about the abortion issue at all is because your mothers decided to keep their pregnancy when they could have aborted it. Perhaps they made the wrong decision?

My mother had a miscarriage that she still talks about to this day, 40 years later. I'll make sure she knows that because of some potential decision she made, made she overstressed herself during the pregnancy, maybe she made some wrong decision about diet, she killed someone who could have had an idiotic argument with you on the internet.

Besides, you're trying to appeal to emotion but it really doesn't work. I never would have existed and I'm sure my mother would have had a reason. I actually care deeply about her happiness, because she's a human who has a life and responsibilities and faced a huge number of decisions in her life. I simply never would have existed and someone else would have. Because I'm not part of the "me" generation I can actually accept that. Apparently you can't.

l0rdneek0[/url]":qhyraw0e]

Static and Noise[/url]":qhyraw0e]

The number of abortions in the US has been steadily decreasing since the 1980s. Despite the population growing.

So your whole rant is based upon a lie, to begin with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_ ... ted_States

And yet
http://www.numberofabortions.com

59 Million and counting........how many babies do we need to murder before we're ashamed of ourselves?

I love how they include decimal places in that. How do you measure 0.2 of an abortion?

 

[Velma Velvet]

In countries where abortion is banned women die. Even when there is an exception when the mother's life is at risk it will be someone else making that decision. It's hard to determine if something is life threatening with 100% certainly so it's safer from a legal standpoint for the peron(s) making the decision to let the woman die. In El Salvador they're also put in prison for miscarriages which is already starting to happen in the US.