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

 

[Velma Velvet]

l0rdneek0[/url]":28ud6omu]

Static and Noise[/url]":28ud6omu]

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?

Mind your own business. When something is taking up residence inside my body it's up to me whether it gets to stay there.

 

[SunnyD]

If the logic is that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks so therefore we must not kill it, when are we going to ban the wanton genocide on every other species on the planet... from bacteria to insects to plants and all other animals? After all, each of them reacts to "pain" inducing stimuli...

Won't someone think of the bacteria?

 

[Velma Velvet]

JBforum[/url]":1xip5yal]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.

This Urban Dictionary entry is so rude (but funny) that you can decide too look or not.

http://ow.ly/KEXg3077kEB

 

[sURFNmADNESS]

I would not blame Trumpmania for this one. Most likely the lawyers of the state seen other states passing laws against Federal law on marijuana. Then figured if it ok to break that Federal Law, then why not another.

It is a slippery slope.

 

[puppies]

mike_syn[/url]":1o41hv35]...Okay, so Ars Technica has decided to follow in WIRED's footsteps and become a general-interest news site. Fine, it's their site, that's their prerogative. It's not like I'm paying for content I don't want.

One question: where should the people who want a good source of tech-focused news go?

Look on the top of the page. Click the "tech" tab.

 

[Tonkaman]

Velma Velvet[/url]":3lqg1yko]

JBforum[/url]":3lqg1yko]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.

This Urban Dictionary entry is so rude (but funny) that you can decide too look or not.

http://ow.ly/KEXg3077kEB

There's a Mummies song about that.

"She is her own virgin of the story
Gettin off on a technicality
It’s not a sin if you know just where to put it
There’s other options if you know just what I mean."

 

[Einbrecher]

h0nda[/url]":1vmne66q]It`s because you are part of the "ME" generation. All you are concerned about is me, myself and I.

Compared to conservatives, liberals are the embodiment of altruism. There is a distinct lack of personal accountability in the conservative ideology across the board.

Do you flat out ignore abortion statistics? Less than 1% of all abortions happen after 20 weeks, with the majority of that 1% being medically necessary or due to pregnancies induced by rape/incest. That means only a fraction of 1% of abortions is due to "irresponsible" or "selfish" behavior. In a country with 300 million people and counting, that is an incredibly good statistic. You're never going to drop it to 0, no matter what laws you enact or how difficult you make it.

I don't know what screams "me" more than insisting a child is born into a household that does not want it, cannot take care of it, and will not take care of it properly. Why do you have any say over what someone else does with their lives?

It's easy to say that there's plenty of families out there looking to adopt children when you're pontificating, but if you actually read or educate yourself, you'd see that there aren't. Foster and state-sponsored childcare systems across this country are underfunded and underserved. People still go to China and Russia to adopt children - and are permitted to do so - despite all of the children in this country. Children today are going without homes and without parents. Where are all of these "families who would happily adopt" all of the children you insist should be carried to term?

Again, it's the conservative "ME" behind all of this. You're fine if it's someone else's problem, until it becomes yours. If you had to be willing to adopt a child - no questions asked and no ability to refuse - in order to vote in opposition to abortion, you'd see that opposition evaporate overnight.

 

[Qurious]

krimhorn[/url]":26c2oh3i]

UltimateLemon[/url]":26c2oh3i]

MikeSafari[/url]":26c2oh3i]America,

What have you done?

Signed,
A concerned Canadian

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.

The sooner we get rid of all gods, the better off we'll all be.

 

[Z1ggy]

UltimateLemon[/url]":8scht2ie]

nosensewhatsoever[/url]":8scht2ie]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":8scht2ie]

Bullcrap. Abstinence is 100% sure-fire to make sure you don't need an abortion.

Except by rape, you mean.

Yes, except by rape or forced insemination. I should have added that caveat, but I thought it obvious. My apologies.

It's not obvious because arguments has been made before that even the result of rape should not be allowed abortion.

ITS IN THE VERY BILL THAT WAS SIGNED. so no its not obvious.

The 20-week ban signed by Kasich today does allow for exceptions if the life of the mother is in grave jeopardy, but not for cases of rape or incest.

 

[Tonkaman]

Einbrecher[/url]":19vv1yjz]

h0nda[/url]":19vv1yjz]It`s because you are part of the "ME" generation. All you are concerned about is me, myself and I.

Compared to conservatives, liberals are the embodiment of altruism. There is a distinct lack of personal accountability in the conservative ideology across the board.

Do you flat out ignore abortion statistics? Less than 1% of all abortions happen after 20 weeks, with the majority of that 1% being medically necessary or due to pregnancies induced by rape/incest. That means only a fraction of 1% of abortions is due to "irresponsible" or "selfish" behavior. In a country with 300 million people and counting, that is an incredibly good statistic. You're never going to drop it to 0, no matter what laws you enact or how difficult you make it.

I don't know what screams "me" more than insisting a child is born into a household that does not want it, cannot take care of it, and will not take care of it properly. Why do you have any say over what someone else does with their lives?

It's easy to say that there's plenty of families out there looking to adopt children when you're pontificating, but if you actually read or educate yourself, you'd see that there aren't. Foster and state-sponsored childcare systems across this country are underfunded and underserved. People still go to China and Russia to adopt children - and are permitted to do so - despite all of the children in this country. Children today are going without homes and without parents. Where are all of these "families who would happily adopt" all of the children you insist should be carried to term?

Again, it's the conservative "ME" behind all of this. You're fine if it's someone else's problem, until it becomes yours. If you had to be willing to adopt a child - no questions asked and no ability to refuse - in order to vote in opposition to abortion, you'd see that opposition evaporate overnight.

They are partially correct on the adoption part. Plenty of people want to adopt really cute infants. If they're much beyond that though? The child is pretty much screwed and will be in the foster care system until they're 18. That's the real problem with the adoption theory. They don't acknowledge that children in reality have a really small window of finding an adoptive family, so it's incredibly unlikely they will actually be adopted.

 

[CyberfireX]

These actions brought to you by the same people who think educating our youth on how to avoid unwanted pregnancy is evil.

 

[Einbrecher]

Tonkaman[/url]":ifmvsqmc]They are partially correct on the adoption part. Plenty of people want to adopt really cute infants. If they're much beyond that though? The child is pretty much screwed and will be in the foster care system until they're 18. That's the real problem with the adoption theory. They don't acknowledge that children in reality have a really small window of finding an adoptive family, so it's incredibly unlikely they will actually be adopted.

Cute, healthy infants from healthy parents with low chance for significant hereditary disease - absolutely.

Baby with development disorders, birth defects, down syndrome, poor medical history or - the really important one here - fetal alcohol syndrome? Also unlikely candidates.

 

[Z1ggy]

Drone13[/url]":3a2n0u44]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.

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.

and thats 2 people for the ignore list for today.

GO look up a tubal pregnancy. Come back and talk then.

 

[Banther]

I have a pro-life belief in that I believe in a babies right to life. That being said, I cannot put my beliefs in front of others choice to have an abortion. It is is and should be someones choice whether they want an abortion and it should be easily accessible to them if they do.

 

[Z1ggy]

truthyboy15[/url]":cjap5tmh]

SixDegrees[/url]":cjap5tmh]

Ushio[/url]":cjap5tmh]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.

no but they are doing the best they can to not pay for birth control pills.

 

[Z1ggy]

Banther[/url]":17sqdr5v]I have a pro-life belief in that I believe in a babies right to life. That being said, I cannot put my beliefs in front of others choice to have an abortion. It is is and should be someones choice whether they want an abortion and it should be easily accessible to them if they do.

welcome to ARS.

with an attitude like that you will enjoy your stay.

 

[Z1ggy]

Qurious[/url]":226s0g1r]

krimhorn[/url]":226s0g1r]

UltimateLemon[/url]":226s0g1r]

MikeSafari[/url]":226s0g1r]America,

What have you done?

Signed,
A concerned Canadian

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.

The sooner we get rid of all gods, the better off we'll all be.

i dont know, i think if we brought back Cthulhu, everything would be taken care of.
at the very least noone would care anymore because we would all be as crazy as mad haters.

 

[0xFFF]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":qjrtlbk5]

breze[/url]":qjrtlbk5]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.

Let me ramble a bit...

I'll agree that one's life does not trace to before conception. A single sperm, and a separate unfertilized ovum, will never become anything besides a sperm and an ovum. At conception, there is no longer a sperm or an ovum, but rather a zygote. This will, barring catastrophe, develop into an adult. Therefore, I also agree that "humanity" begins with conception.

However, I see your distinction between "human" and "person" as arbitrary and worthless. A zygote human differs from an adult human in a few ways: size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. We don't kill women because they have dwarfism. We don't kill toddlers because they have Down syndrome. We don't kill elderly men because they have dementia and require constant care and attention. We don't kill people simply because of where they live. To do so would be murder. Every human being is a person.

Why then is it acceptable to kill humans who are only a few centimeters tall, with brains that are not yet fully developed, who are entirely dependent on their mother, and live in her uterus? Science tells us that this tiny human will grow to be an adult in normal circumstances. If a pregnant mother is murdered, the killer is often charged with two counts. Yet many fight for the right for a mother to hire someone to take the life of her unborn child. What is the difference here? In the first case, it is assumed that the child is "wanted" and therefore it is considered a person. In the second, the child is obviously "unwanted", so it is considered a "lump of flesh". Does one's affections for another (or lack thereof) change their personhood? No. Who has the right to determine the minimum "quality of life" for a someone to be considered a human being of any value? We have seen what happens when a government, or a population decides that some subgroup of people is unworthy (or less worthy) of life, simply because of their heritage, their religion, their appearance, etc. - slavery, racism, genocide, murder, coerced euthanasia.

No. I do not accept that a "human" only become a person of value at a certain point. I cannot see how abortion is anything other than murder, no matter the circumstances. Mother's life in danger? Two lives are at risk, fight for both of them. Rape or incest victim? Bring real justice to the perpetrator. Unwanted child? There are millions of people who would love to adopt a baby. Every human being has value and has a right to life. Every human being debating this matter has not been denied that right. Unjustly denying another human that right is murder.

There will surely be those, on both sides of this debate, who will cling to inconsistent arguments no matter what. If you can follow my wandering thoughts, please consider the logical implications of an arbitrary definition of life.

 

[ziegler]

MikeSafari[/url]":1n4y2q5w]America,

What have you done?

Signed,
A concerned Canadian

Trying to become more like Europe?

http://abortion-clinics.eu/abortion-europe/

n'est pas?

 

[mattjreilly]

Theory240[/url]":1o9cfptp]

UltimateLemon[/url]":1o9cfptp]

Theory240[/url]":1o9cfptp]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.

--

Ok so break down of situation given abortion is made illegal because it's fairer on men with no self control

1) Man wants abortion, woman doesn't want abortion = Tough. No abortion. Fatherhood for you.
2) Man doesn't want abortion, woman wants abortion = Tough. No abortion. Fatherhood for you.
3) Man wants abortion, woman wants abortion = Tough. No abortion. Fatherhood for you.
4) Man doesn't want abortion, woman doesn't want abortion = Question of abortion irrelevant. Fatherhood for you.

It is not about fatherhood, it is about equality.

She doesn't get an out unless he has one as well...

--

Only one of the parties actually has to give birth to the baby so your equality argument is absurd! Or did mommy and daddy never have that talk with you?

 

[mattjreilly]

h0nda[/url]":34qcx5g2]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?

Spare us the straw man. I haven't seen anyone arguing for abortion at any stage of development here.

 

[ziegler]

Z1ggy[/url]":345bf63a]

Drone13[/url]":345bf63a]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.

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.

and thats 2 people for the ignore list for today.

GO look up a tubal pregnancy. Come back and talk then.

You are actually going to try to equivocate a tubal pregnancy to a viable pregnancy? Tubal pregnancies rarely ever go 6 past weeks, and are never considered an actual viable pregnancy. The procedure is not considered an abortion by medical standards.

 

[mattjreilly]

Ushio[/url]":1w098t02]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?

Maybe because we're a developed nation with no guaranteed access to healthcare? Maybe because even the discussion of sexual reproduction is anathema to the religious zealots that make up a good chunk of this country. Or maybe it's those same zealots who feel their vision should apply to everyone.

 

[0xFFF]

Theory240[/url]":3k9y6uv0]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.

--

If your sperm is involved in the conception of a child, you're already a father. If a woman becomes pregnant, she's already a mother. If the mother aborts the child, she's now the mother of a dead child, and the father is likewise the father of a dead child.

 

[mattjreilly]

truthyboy15[/url]":6qg88bo2]

gulthaw[/url]":6qg88bo2]

truthyboy15[/url]":6qg88bo2]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.

If you need that clause at the beginning of your post, be assured, you are being a fuckwad.

 

[mattjreilly]

l0rdneek0[/url]":wuyna2zo]

Static and Noise[/url]":wuyna2zo]

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?

The number is zero because they're not babies. Sorry, try again.

 

[mattjreilly]

0xFFF[/url]":144z9key]

pond[/url]":144z9key]

DManatunga[/url]":144z9key]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.

That's ridiculous, but I'll play along a bit...

There aren't that many "fetuses" on the list waiting for a uterus compared to the number of mothers who have "donated their uterus" (many through irresponsible sex), and now want to take it back again.

Say you donated your marrow to a dying sweet little child, and after they received the transplant, you hauled them back to the hospital to get your marrow back, knowing the operation would be fatal. Abortion is only about the bodily autonomy of one person, while denying the same to others.

"Irresponsible sex" there's your tell. It's not about babies with you, it's that these women need to be punished.

 

[mattjreilly]

Qurious[/url]":172j9vd9]

krimhorn[/url]":172j9vd9]

UltimateLemon[/url]":172j9vd9]

MikeSafari[/url]":172j9vd9]America,

What have you done?

Signed,
A concerned Canadian

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.

The sooner we get rid of all gods, the better off we'll all be.

You can keep your god, just know it is YOUR god, not my god or anybody else if they don't want it to be.

 

[mattjreilly]

SunnyD[/url]":304hmqf5]If the logic is that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks so therefore we must not kill it, when are we going to ban the wanton genocide on every other species on the planet... from bacteria to insects to plants and all other animals? After all, each of them reacts to "pain" inducing stimuli...

Won't someone think of the bacteria?

Exactly. I hope the proponents of this bill are all vegan.

 

[0xFFF]

mattjreilly[/url]":18q4rfb4]

0xFFF[/url]":18q4rfb4]

pond[/url]":18q4rfb4]

DManatunga[/url]":18q4rfb4]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.

That's ridiculous, but I'll play along a bit...

There aren't that many "fetuses" on the list waiting for a uterus compared to the number of mothers who have "donated their uterus" (many through irresponsible sex), and now want to take it back again.

Say you donated your marrow to a dying sweet little child, and after they received the transplant, you hauled them back to the hospital to get your marrow back, knowing the operation would be fatal. Abortion is only about the bodily autonomy of one person, while denying the same to others.

"Irresponsible sex" there's your tell. It's not about babies with you, it's that these women need to be punished.

Who said anything about punishment? It's about accepting the consequences of your actions. If I spend my money irresponsibly and blow it all on gambling, is my poverty "punishment"?

 

[arkiel]

Is there evidence that a fetus can be removed and survive at 20 weeks? Because if so, this is compatible with Roe. Otherwise, its just a bunch of limp-wristed fascist legislators wasting everyone's time.

 

[mattjreilly]

0xFFF[/url]":lml4f69t]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":lml4f69t]

breze[/url]":lml4f69t]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.

Let me ramble a bit...

I'll agree that one's life does not trace to before conception. A single sperm, and a separate unfertilized ovum, will never become anything besides a sperm and an ovum. At conception, there is no longer a sperm or an ovum, but rather a zygote. This will, barring catastrophe, develop into an adult. Therefore, I also agree that "humanity" begins with conception.

However, I see your distinction between "human" and "person" as arbitrary and worthless. A zygote human differs from an adult human in a few ways: size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. We don't kill women because they have dwarfism. We don't kill toddlers because they have Down syndrome. We don't kill elderly men because they have dementia and require constant care and attention. We don't kill people simply because of where they live. To do so would be murder. Every human being is a person.

Why then is it acceptable to kill humans who are only a few centimeters tall, with brains that are not yet fully developed, who are entirely dependent on their mother, and live in her uterus? Science tells us that this tiny human will grow to be an adult in normal circumstances. If a pregnant mother is murdered, the killer is often charged with two counts. Yet many fight for the right for a mother to hire someone to take the life of her unborn child. What is the difference here? In the first case, it is assumed that the child is "wanted" and therefore it is considered a person. In the second, the child is obviously "unwanted", so it is considered a "lump of flesh". Does one's affections for another (or lack thereof) change their personhood? No. Who has the right to determine the minimum "quality of life" for a someone to be considered a human being of any value? We have seen what happens when a government, or a population decides that some subgroup of people is unworthy (or less worthy) of life, simply because of their heritage, their religion, their appearance, etc. - slavery, racism, genocide, murder, coerced euthanasia.

No. I do not accept that a "human" only become a person of value at a certain point. I cannot see how abortion is anything other than murder, no matter the circumstances. Mother's life in danger? Two lives are at risk, fight for both of them. Rape or incest victim? Bring real justice to the perpetrator. Unwanted child? There are millions of people who would love to adopt a baby. Every human being has value and has a right to life. Every human being debating this matter has not been denied that right. Unjustly denying another human that right is murder.

There will surely be those, on both sides of this debate, who will cling to inconsistent arguments no matter what. If you can follow my wandering thoughts, please consider the logical implications of an arbitrary definition of life.

Because the embryo cannot exist separately from the mother at this point. It is a defacto part of her body and who are you to tell her what to do with her body?

 

[mattjreilly]

0xFFF[/url]":ldxmrh0m]

mattjreilly[/url]":ldxmrh0m]

0xFFF[/url]":ldxmrh0m]

pond[/url]":ldxmrh0m]

DManatunga[/url]":ldxmrh0m]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.

That's ridiculous, but I'll play along a bit...

There aren't that many "fetuses" on the list waiting for a uterus compared to the number of mothers who have "donated their uterus" (many through irresponsible sex), and now want to take it back again.

Say you donated your marrow to a dying sweet little child, and after they received the transplant, you hauled them back to the hospital to get your marrow back, knowing the operation would be fatal. Abortion is only about the bodily autonomy of one person, while denying the same to others.

"Irresponsible sex" there's your tell. It's not about babies with you, it's that these women need to be punished.

Who said anything about punishment? It's about accepting the consequences of your actions. If I spend my money irresponsibly and blow it all on gambling, is my poverty "punishment"?

In this case the consequences fall entirely and unequally on one party, the women. She has the right to determine the outcome of a process that is occurring within and not possible with her own body.

 

[Static and Noise]

arkiel[/url]":qy7moyr1]Is there evidence that a fetus can be removed and survive at 20 weeks? Because if so, this is compatible with Roe. Otherwise, its just a bunch of limp-wristed fascist legislators wasting everyone's time.

Week 23-24 is I believe the general lower limit (exceptions exist).

 

[0xFFF]

mattjreilly[/url]":1nvu82mv]

0xFFF[/url]":1nvu82mv]

mattjreilly[/url]":1nvu82mv]

0xFFF[/url]":1nvu82mv]

pond[/url]":1nvu82mv]

DManatunga[/url]":1nvu82mv]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.

That's ridiculous, but I'll play along a bit...

There aren't that many "fetuses" on the list waiting for a uterus compared to the number of mothers who have "donated their uterus" (many through irresponsible sex), and now want to take it back again.

Say you donated your marrow to a dying sweet little child, and after they received the transplant, you hauled them back to the hospital to get your marrow back, knowing the operation would be fatal. Abortion is only about the bodily autonomy of one person, while denying the same to others.

"Irresponsible sex" there's your tell. It's not about babies with you, it's that these women need to be punished.

Who said anything about punishment? It's about accepting the consequences of your actions. If I spend my money irresponsibly and blow it all on gambling, is my poverty "punishment"?

In this case the consequences fall entirely and unequally on one party, the women. She has the right to determine the outcome of a process that is occurring within and not possible without her own body.

I agree that too often the consequences do fall solely on the women and their children, and that is a major problem. But, it has nothing to do with abortion and is not justification for murder.

 

[mattjreilly]

0xFFF[/url]":2b3qumrd]

mattjreilly[/url]":2b3qumrd]

l0rdneek0[/url]":2b3qumrd]

Static and Noise[/url]":2b3qumrd]

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?

The number is zero because they're not babies. Sorry, try again.

I trust your ability to define personhood and the value of human life about as much as I would trust Adolph Hitler or Théoneste Bagosora to do the same, that is, not at all.

Wow, and the conservatives say liberals are the ones invoking Hitler at the drop of a hat. You can define the personhood of the embryo in your uterus however see fit. Keep your hands and laws out of other people's.

 

[mattjreilly]

0xFFF[/url]":2x9pca9q]

mattjreilly[/url]":2x9pca9q]
I agree that too often the consequences do fall solely on the women and their children, and that is a major problem. But, it has nothing to do with abortion and is not justification for murder.

Well, according to the Supreme Court, abortion before viability has nothing to do with murder. If you have religious views that are in conflict with that feel free to apply them to the any embryos that reside in your uterus.