# Should Abortion Be Illegal Once a Heartbeat Is Detectable?



## Shogun (Jun 30, 2011)

Across the country, Republicans and Democrats are wrangling over proposed changes to state abortion laws. On Tuesday, the Ohio House of Representatives voted on a measure that has the power to transform the states  and the nations  abortion dialogue. In a landmark move, the House voted 54 to 43 to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat becomes detectable to doctors.

The measure, known as the Heartbeat Bill, has been touted by Republicans in the state, with the majority of them voting affirmatively for its passage. There has been no shortage of controversy surrounding the proposal, as a heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks (by some accounts, it can be found even earlier). Also, the measure does not include exemptions for rape or incest, but it does include one for the health of the mother. Reuters has more about this intriguing legislative initiative:

Should Abortion Be Illegal Once a Heartbeat Is Detectable? | Breaking news and opinion on The Blaze


----------



## Shogun (Jun 30, 2011)

While the source (The Blaze) is a bit laughable, this article caught my attention because I've made this very same suggestion regarding A GREAT INTERNET ABORTION COMPROMISE spanning all the way back to my very first posted thread on this forum.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 30, 2011)

Shogun said:


> Across the country, Republicans and Democrats are wrangling over proposed changes to state abortion laws. On Tuesday, the Ohio House of Representatives voted on a measure that has the power to transform the states  and the nations  abortion dialogue. In a landmark move, the House voted 54 to 43 to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat becomes detectable to doctors.
> 
> The measure, known as the Heartbeat Bill, has been touted by Republicans in the state, with the majority of them voting affirmatively for its passage. There has been no shortage of controversy surrounding the proposal, as a heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks (by some accounts, it can be found even earlier). Also, the measure does not include exemptions for rape or incest, but it does include one for the health of the mother. Reuters has more about this intriguing legislative initiative:
> 
> Should Abortion Be Illegal Once a Heartbeat Is Detectable? | Breaking news and opinion on The Blaze



Demagoguery at its finest.  Did the 'moral' majority who voted in the affirmative also guarantee other rights after birth?  Clean water, clean air, proper healthcare, a good educaton, a safe neighborhood, two parents who nurtured and didn't abuse and maintain a sober & clean home and offer proper nutrition?

Did they provide for free contraceptives to any women of child bearing years?  Proper sex education in the schools so that young girls and boys understand the dangers of STD and methods to prevent pregnancy?

Do these same autocrats who deny women the right to chose also provide funding for providing women with an understanding of domestic violence,  power and control and how a child makes extricating themselves from such a relationship much more dangerous for she and her children?

Did they fund shelter's for women and children?  Did they fund the court system so prosecutors and probation officers are trained on victimology and domestic violence?  Is there funding to treat offenders for substance abuse and anger management while in custody and after release.  Are Probation and Parole Officers funded to supervise caseloads of DV offenders with numbers low enough to assure enforcement of stay away and restraining orders?

Of course not, there is no revenue to offer any of these services.  And anyway, when I suggest such services doesn't that make me a "statist' or defender of 'nanny statism"?


----------



## FuelRod (Jun 30, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Across the country, Republicans and Democrats are wrangling over proposed changes to state abortion laws. On Tuesday, the Ohio House of Representatives voted on a measure that has the power to transform the states  and the nations  abortion dialogue. In a landmark move, the House voted 54 to 43 to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat becomes detectable to doctors.
> ...



No.  But we're humans.  Not dogs.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jun 30, 2011)

I don't see anything wrong with that.
It would be pretty ridiculous to try and argue that it is not a life yet at that point.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 30, 2011)

FuelRod said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



You're comment is vague.  Are you really equating women and children with dogs?


----------



## theHawk (Jun 30, 2011)

Of course it should be illegal at that point.

Its amazing how liberals pick and choose which scientific facts to ignore.  They don't want to admit that the unborn has its own DNA and its growing right from the begining.

Its also rather amazing that liberals don't want the people to have any say on the subject.  Any attempts of bringing the subject to the people for a vote is met with fury.  And yet Americans consistantly vote that abortion should not be used freely as birth control.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 30, 2011)

theHawk said:


> Of course it should be illegal at that point.
> 
> Its amazing how liberals pick and choose which scientific facts to ignore.  They don't want to admit that the unborn has its own DNA and its growing right from the begining.
> 
> Its also rather amazing that liberals don't want the people to have any say on the subject.  Any attempts of bringing the subject to the people for a vote is met with fury.  And yet Americans consistantly vote that abortion should not be used freely as birth control.



I don't know anyone who thinks abortion as a means of birth control is sane or practical.  As for your being amazed, not all liberals hope to shut up the right to life crowd; your comment is pure hyperbole.

There was no fury in my post on this issue, unless pointing out the obvious demagoguery meets your defintiion of fury.

We punish illegality in America in two ways:  we take away someone's money, and/or, we take away someone's liberty and freedom (which may include jail, prison or execution).  Making abortion jillegal as early as this bill provides suggests that those who chose to do so might be charged with a capital crime and executed.  

Of course you chose to disregard the reasons for abortion, means of contraception and issues of domestic violence and power and control.  Why?


----------



## theHawk (Jun 30, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it should be illegal at that point.
> ...



The world doesn't revolve around you, I wasn't even referring to your post.

There are plenty of left wing nuts who think abortion is a "right" and can be used for whatever reason the mother sees fit, even if you choose to ignore them.

Thanks for stating the obvious that making something illegal will lead to arrests and jail time("taking away their liberty") for those who chose to break the law.

And yes, I choose to ignore things like domestic violence and "power and control" (whatever the hell that means) as valid reasons for abortion.
Would those be justifiable reasons to muder other people?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 30, 2011)

theHawk said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



You're really fucked up.  Willful ignorance is not a virtue, though, I'm pretty sure your ignorance is both willful and congenital.


----------



## peach174 (Jun 30, 2011)

I could not do it.
I think that women should be told the full facts before they make this decision.
They aren't. They find out about it after the abortion.
Abortionists don't want them to know, because they say it sways the woman's decision.
I think it is totally wrong not to be told before you have it done.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9Vvfckoq8w&NR=1]YouTube - &#x202a;An Aborted Baby Dies A Violent Painful Death (Truth # 2)&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 30, 2011)

peach174 said:


> I could not do it.
> I think that women should be told the full facts before they make this decision.
> They aren't. They find out about it after the abortion.
> Abortinists don't want them to know, becuse they say it sways the woman's decesion.
> ...



So, do you agree age approprite sex education including facts on contraception, STD, abortion, domestic violence and issues of power and control in relationships are needed?


----------



## peach174 (Jun 30, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > I could not do it.
> ...



I thought it was already being taught in High Schools.


----------



## theHawk (Jun 30, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



I am the one that is "fucked up"?  I am not the one trying to use domestic violence as an excuse to kill a child.

You're one hell of a person to be lecturing anyone on willful ignorance.


----------



## Bern80 (Jun 30, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



He has a perfectly good point wry. You claim there is some hypocrisy by outlawing certain abortions but not providing all these resources once a child is born. You're basically saying abortion is justified because it's preferable to the child being abused later. He is simply pointing out the lunacy in that argument. If that's true it should apply to any child, born or not.


----------



## theHawk (Jun 30, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...




That is exactly right, but people like Wry Catcher are too blinded by their own stupidity to see that.

I have had several conversations with people I know who support abortion, and it usually boils down to the same reasoning -  that if a pregnant girl is living in poverty then it would be 'cruel' to bring a child into that environment.  As if the child would rather just be dead than to live in a poor home.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 30, 2011)

theHawk said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



You really are stupid and dishonest.  Never did I suggest that DV was an excuse for abortion.  Impregnating women is a common method imployed by abusers to gain power and control.  Of course you acknowledged your ignorance of power and control in relationships proudly.  Which is why I conclude you are "fucked Up".  In polite words a callous and ignorant jerk.


----------



## elvis (Jun 30, 2011)

Shogun said:


> While the source (The Blaze) is a bit laughable, this article caught my attention because I've made this very same suggestion regarding A GREAT INTERNET ABORTION COMPROMISE spanning all the way back to my very first posted thread on this forum.




It makes sense to me.  If someone is out cold on the floor, what is the first thing the paramedics look for as a sign of life?  This has been my stand for a long time as well.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jun 30, 2011)

theHawk said:


> Of course it should be illegal at that point.
> 
> Its amazing how liberals pick and choose which scientific facts to ignore.  They don't want to admit that the unborn has its own DNA and its growing right from the begining.
> 
> Its also rather amazing that liberals don't want the people to have any say on the subject.  Any attempts of bringing the subject to the people for a vote is met with fury.  And yet Americans consistantly vote that abortion should not be used freely as birth control.



So true!
Let me amplify on that....

"In 1999, *Peter Singer*, a former professor at Australias Monash University, became the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the Princeton University Center for Human Values. At Princeton, Singer is molding and shaping the views of future leaders in medicine, law, education and business.

Singers appointment was met with shock and dismay by those who were aware of his views. He is an *outspoken advocate of infanticide and euthanasia. In a 1983 article, Singer negatively compared the value of a handicapped newborn with that of a pig: *

If we compare a severely defective human infant with a nonhuman animal, a dog or a pig, for example, we will often find the nonhuman to have superior capacities, both actual and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness, communication, and anything else that can plausibly be considered morally significant. Only the fact that the defective infant is a member of the species Homo sapiens leads it to be treated differently from the dog or pig. Species alone, however, is not morally relevant.(37)

Apparently the president of Princeton considers *advocacy of infant killing *to be in the same category as differing views on economic policy  just one more topic of academic debate.

While Singer vociferously condemns killing animals, his opposition to killing pales when it comes to humans. *I do think that it is sometimes appropriate to kill a human infant, *he told the Cape Cod Times. For me, the relevant question is, what makes it so seriously wrong to take a life? he asked. Those of you who are not vegetarians are responsible for taking a life every time you eat. Species is no more relevant than race in making these judgments.(49)

Assisted Suicide: Not for Adults Only? | Patients Rights Council


It should be noted that Singer was selected by President Obama as one of his advisors.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 30, 2011)

theHawk said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



No, he does not have a point, perfect or otherwise.  Neither do you, and your straw man won't burn, Bern.

Not all pregnancies are equal.  Some 'babies' suffer congential medical issues which no medical interventions can repair, some pregnancies are the result of rape or incest, and some the result of ignorance or efforts by a man to exercise power and control over the woman.

The authors and supporters of the bill in question are demagogues who paint with a broad brush and offer women a Hobson's Choice.  I simply suggest that if they oppose abortion, they fund the means for women to learn how to prevent pregnancy, how DV and power and control can take away their choice to become pregnant, and they abide by the law as determined in Roe v. Wade.


----------



## chikenwing (Jun 30, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Across the country, Republicans and Democrats are wrangling over proposed changes to state abortion laws. On Tuesday, the Ohio House of Representatives voted on a measure that has the power to transform the states  and the nations  abortion dialogue. In a landmark move, the House voted 54 to 43 to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat becomes detectable to doctors.
> ...



And not one of the above has a thing to do with the bill,but nice deflection.


----------



## daveman (Jun 30, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Across the country, Republicans and Democrats are wrangling over proposed changes to state abortion laws. On Tuesday, the Ohio House of Representatives voted on a measure that has the power to transform the states  and the nations  abortion dialogue. In a landmark move, the House voted 54 to 43 to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat becomes detectable to doctors.
> ...


You're right.  Better to just kill 'em all.


----------



## daveman (Jun 30, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


You know that didn't refute anything he said, right?

Or are you saying the world really _does_ revolve around you?


----------



## daveman (Jun 30, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


Most abortions are for convenience:
Reasons given for having abortions in the United States


Wry Catcher said:


> The authors and supporters of the bill in question are demagogues who paint with a broad brush and offer women a Hobson's Choice.  I simply suggest that if they oppose abortion, they fund the means for women to learn how to prevent pregnancy, how DV and power and control can take away their choice to become pregnant, and they abide by the law as determined in Roe v. Wade.


I hear not having sex works great.


----------



## chikenwing (Jun 30, 2011)

The long winded rants ,demanding program funding,and resopnsabilities of everyone but the ones that count,are nothing but deflections from what every would be rational person understands what is really the question,is it a Labrador,hope for a chocolate!!or is a fancy goldfish with those big buggy eyes!! in there and when does it change to something like me??


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 30, 2011)

chikenwing said:


> The long winded rants ,demanding program funding,and resopnsabilities of everyone but the ones that count,are nothing but deflections from what every would be rational person understands what is really the question,is it a Labrador,hope for a chocolate!!or is a fancy goldfish with those big buggy eyes!! in there and when does it change to something like me??



Holy shit, word salad on paper.

I can't help you to comprehend my "long winded rant".  It was not written demanding anything as those who comprehend the written word understand.

The bill is demagoguery at its finest; just for you I'll provide a definition of a demagoguer:

_"a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people."_

Now, in a nutshell, Roe v. Wade is is the historic Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas interpretation of abortion law and making abortion legal in the United States. The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without restriction, and with restrictions in later months, based on the right to privacy.

Now, can you draw an inference from this bit of factual information?  (I've have little hope you will).

Hint, Federal Law trumps State Law.  The bill was passed to arouse the emotions, passions and prejudices of the people.  It has no possibility of passing the test of constitutionality.
(actually it might, if reviewed by the activist Robert's Court it might be approved by five Justices.  Can you name the five?).


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 30, 2011)

daveman said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



1) Most abortions are not for convenience. Having one because you do not feel able to bring it up, or your life is in such a state that having a child would not help, is not convenience. I bet the three women who I know how have had abortions would come under your definition of 'convenience'. Knowing what they went through, it was anything but.
2) Yeah, abstinance only has proven to really work... What do you do for an encore? Through a stray dog a piece of steak and tell it not to eat it?


----------



## daveman (Jun 30, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


Unless they were raped, or were the victims of incest, or their lives were endangered -- yes, it was for convenience.


Dr Grump said:


> 2) Yeah, abstinance only has proven to really work... What do you do for an encore? Through a stray dog a piece of steak and tell it not to eat it?


I'm not talking about education, moron.  I'm saying not having sex is the only 100% sure birth control method.

It really is simple:  If you don't want to have a child, or father a child, _don't have sex_. 

If you do, be prepared to handle the consequences.

Oh, sorry -- I said the C word.  I know leftists don't like it.


----------



## BOBO (Jun 30, 2011)

Medical bills & all related costs are covered in adoption.  Woman gets pregnant,  woman adopts out baby, Physician is happy,  mama is happy,  Adopting parents are happy & baby never knows he/she has been adopted out.  No losers here as everyone wins.  The good part is the politickin' is removed out of the system!


----------



## daveman (Jun 30, 2011)

BOBO said:


> Medical bills & all related costs are covered in adoption.  Woman gets pregnant,  woman adopts out baby, Physician is happy,  mama is happy,  Adopting parents are happy & baby never knows he/she has been adopted out.  No losers here as everyone wins.  The good part is the politickin' is removed out of the system!



And that's why the left opposes it.  Abortion is a tool to fire up the base with.


----------



## Rozman (Jun 30, 2011)

Amazing the left is crying tonight because Kansas has new regulations for abortion clinics.They are upset because these clinics will not be performing abortions tomorrow or the next day or the day after at least until they comply with the new regs.

It amazes me with the Lefts love and utter craving for abortions and how sad they get when they don't get to have one any time at all.

It might be a good idea to practice some form of birth control no? These girls today want to bang like bunnys and when they get preggers,well no big deal....

Geez....


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 30, 2011)

> If enacted, the law would be a challenge to the U.S. Supreme Courts 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling which upheld a womans right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, usually at 22-24 weeks.
> 
> Republican Ohio House Speaker William Batchelder said he knows this bill will face a court challenge.
> 
> Were writing bills for courts, he said.



Sad. 

Lawmakers are expected to craft legislation in good faith that a given measure is Constitutional. Indeed, these and other lawmakers swore an oath the protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and that includes the right to privacy. 

With the advent of protest laws ushered in by the radical right, this Nation has entered a Dark Age of legislative terrorism. 

As for writing bills for courts, that effort is pointless: _Griswold/Roe/Casey_ is considered settled law, and Justice Kennedy  who would be the deciding vote should this or any similar case come before the Court  would never allow such a law to stand, as it would be too restrictive and burdensome. Kennedy joined the majority in _Planned Parenthood v. Casey_ (1992) where the Court upheld the fundamental right to privacy.


----------



## Cimerian (Jun 30, 2011)

What i do not understand is that an abortion by the mother is completely legal yet a speeder kills a fetus and they can be sent to jail for manslaughter? I think the real question to be answered is, is it a life or isn't it?


----------



## Rozman (Jun 30, 2011)

Cimerian said:


> What i do not understand is that an abortion by the mother is completely legal yet a speeder kills a fetus and they can be sent to jail for manslaughter? I think the real question to be answered is, is it a life or isn't it?




It's fine and it's no big deal to have thousands of abortions each day,no biggie....right Libs?


----------



## jillian (Jun 30, 2011)

Rozman said:


> Cimerian said:
> 
> 
> > What i do not understand is that an abortion by the mother is completely legal yet a speeder kills a fetus and they can be sent to jail for manslaughter? I think the real question to be answered is, is it a life or isn't it?
> ...



it always strikes me funny how rightwingnuts shriek mindlessly about small government, losing their minds if they're told to wear a seatbelt; ranting and raving if they have to buy health insurance.

but they love government when it invades women's wombs.

you can barely make moral judgments for yourselves but think you should make them for others?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 30, 2011)

> It's fine and it's no big deal to have thousands of abortions each day,no biggie....right Libs?



This makes no sense whatsoever. 

This has noting to do with libs, there are jurists across the political spectrum who understand and respect the law. There are libs who oppose abortion, yet also understand the rule of law and that merely banning abortion wont end it. Indeed, those who advocate banning abortion as the only remedy arent true abortion opponents at all.


----------



## theHawk (Jun 30, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



The topic is about abortion and you are talking about "power and control" and "domestic violence".   And now you are retracting and saying "I'm not defending abortion on demand!"

Why don't you stop the tapdancing and state what ARE valid reasons for abortion.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 1, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



When it's thrown back that why I'm sure you think you didn't. But the reality is that if you insist that if government is going to be resposible for children being born who otherwise wouldn't be, then government must also be responsible for keeping those same children from being abused, you are in fact using potential abuse as a justification for having an abortion.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 1, 2011)

theHawk said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



No, what it "boils down to" is that poor women will be the only ones ever prosecuted if abortion was illegal. This has never been a "those that do not want abortion illegal are leftists and love abortion" argument, ever. I adamantly oppose abortion but am old enough to remember when it was illegal and how anyone with even a little bit of cash received one legally. 
If you or anyone believes that doctors will not do what they always did with women of means stating in the medical reports "we had to abort for the health of the mother" then you folks are either very young or extremely naive and gullible. Or most likely, all 3.
NO law will ever stop a doctor from providing WHATEVER documentation any women that has the cash to obtain it to receive an abortion and never be prosecuted for it.
Real world. Please join us. We oppose abortion but know the realities of putting too much power into the hands of government to selectively prosecute only the poor women with no means to pay a doctor for a report of medical necessity.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 1, 2011)

jillian said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Cimerian said:
> ...



Get real Jillian. What the right has always stood for is individual liberty and government's proper authority to protect it. It isn't their fault that you don't consider children in the womb part of 'everyone'.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 1, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



I didn't say what you claim.  In simple words I said the authors of the bill are demagogues.  The bill painted with a broad brush, some women abort their pregnancies for very legitimate reasons and do so legally.
I added, which obviously confused you, that the demagogues have taken no action to reduce abortions by providing the needed resources to prevent unwanted pregnancies.  Such resources include providing age appropriate sex education in public schools, including information on contraceptives and their proper use; the dangers of STD, on issues of power and control and parental responsibility would in my opinon do just that.  It might help too if the demagogoues funded enforcement of parental support laws and jailed fathers who didn't pay support when ordered by the court to do so.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 1, 2011)

Rozman said:


> Amazing the left is crying tonight because Kansas has new regulations for abortion clinics.They are upset because these clinics will not be performing abortions tomorrow or the next day or the day after at least until they comply with the new regs.
> 
> It amazes me with the Lefts love and utter craving for abortions and how sad they get when they don't get to have one any time at all.
> 
> ...



"These girls today want to bang like bunnys"
Hate to inform you there Moe but it takes BOYS also.
The boys are the ones that need to be held accountable and in most cases they are ignored, left out of the equation like you did and not held to the SAME STANDARD.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 1, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



In Georgia child support is considered a civil matter BEFORE any action can be taken.
Amazing how they want to ban abortions and do not make any effort to make men responsible for their own children.


----------



## signelect (Jul 1, 2011)

A heart beat indicates life, end of discussion.  We can argue for ever over what may or may not happen but we should not take a life without penalty.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 1, 2011)

signelect said:


> A heart beat indicates life, end of discussion.  We can argue for ever over what may or may not happen but we should not take a life without penalty.



And you want government to be the determiner of "it was done in the interest of the health of the mother"?
And you believe that the medical lobby is not strong enough to influence every state and every prosecutor in the country?
And you do not know that NO doctor will state that another doctor illegally performed an abortion as you do not know that is ALWAYS the evidence and the ONLY needed to convict.

Respectfully, you folks have not been around long enough to know how this works. Blame the doctors if you want but that is the way it worked when it was illegal and that is the only way it will ever work.

You never stop abortions with regulation. Doesn't work and never has work. Doctors do it and find a legal way to do it and that will always be. 
Real world.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 1, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



It's nice to think that will help, but it won't. Here's your education kids: A 'side effect' of sex is a baby. EDUCATION OVER. 

Believe it or not, I am pro choice.......to a point. But the fact is the vast majority of abortions are performed for convenience reasons.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 1, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> signelect said:
> 
> 
> > A heart beat indicates life, end of discussion.  We can argue for ever over what may or may not happen but we should not take a life without penalty.
> ...



"Reality" is no excuse to not take every measure necessary to keep an innocent life from being murdered.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 1, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I disagree.  How convienient is it for a women to go to a clinic, especially in a state like Kansas, with pickets out in front calling you a baby killer?  Seems to me, and the women I've known intimately, the pill, IUD or diaphram is simpler, easier and damn effective.

Your comment is tantamount to Nancy Reagan's solution for drug abuse, just say no never worked and the result hasn't benefited anyone; how many billions have been wasted on the war on drugs; how many women became septic from back alley abortions?  One is too many.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 1, 2011)

Is lack of proper health care legalized murder? Is collateral damage murder? Are sanctions which only kill children and the sickly murder? Is the lack of a fair wage and a place to sleep murder? If parents can be held accountable for their children after birth and society finds it acceptable to punish them, then shouldn't all those who argue against healthcare, child support, food programs, and welfare, shouldn't they too be held accountable?  Is invading a sovereign nation on trumped up charges murder? Did you protest Iraq? Did you cry these crocodile tears? So called pro life may be the biggest hypocritical religious position of modern America as none of these people want to support the living, feed the hungry, stop war, or follow their own phoney stance and have lots of children. None would take care all the children born except to place them into servitude and condemn them. Hypocrites all. 

Why is it men who cannot make this decision know the proper decision?  Keep your religion out of other people lives.

Does pro-life include not eating and killing other life forms for surely they suffer and die at a more advanced level of life and feeling? 

Each month a women, a couple, decide on whether the cells, the potential cells are to be discarded or if they are to attempt a conception and thus life. If they choose not to create life, is that OK, for surely this is life (cellular life) being discarded?

Two out of five (or more) conceptions end naturally, who is at fault here? Nature or gawd? Are these humans? 

How is it that a decision, a moral judgment, that a women or a couple makes is thought of as wrong by another person or entity who have no authority to tell or command another person? 

*I repeat when anti abortion foes stop the needless deaths of living, feeling humans throughout the world who die every 15 seconds, when they even care and protest that this happens, when they protest wars that kill the innocent, when they provide welfare and care for the homeless and the hungry in America and the world, then I will take them serious. But till then they are hypocrites because their only desire to control another who they give not a flying fluck about and probably condemn. It's so easy to be moral when nothing is demanded of you and you do nothing but preach and legislate. *


"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time." HISTORY OF ABORTION


Boston Review &mdash; Judith Jarvis Thomson
Top 10 Anti-Abortion Myths - Top 10 Myths About Abortion
Why Francis Beckwith


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 1, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



I'm not saying everyone must be abstinent if they don't want kids. I'm saying you're an idiot to think the abortion rate will drop by educating people on what everyone already knows.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 1, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> Is lack of proper health care legalized murder? Is collateral damage murder? Are sanctions which only kill children and the sickly murder? Is the lack of a fair wage and a place to sleep murder? If parents can be held accountable for their children after birth and society finds it acceptable to punish them, then shouldn't all those who argue against healthcare, child support, food programs, and welfare, shouldn't they too be held accountable?  Is invading a sovereign nation on trumped up charges murder? Did you protest Iraq? Did you cry these crocodile tears? So called pro life may be the biggest hypocritical religious position of modern America as none of these people want to support the living, feed the hungry, stop war, or follow their own phoney stance and have lots of children. None would take care all the children born except to place them into servitude and condemn them. Hypocrites all.
> 
> Why is it men who cannot make this decision know the proper decision?  Keep your religion out of other people lives.
> 
> ...



Maybe you should ask yourself that if you support the murder of an unborn child, why should the rest of us believe you are sincere in your concerns for "the living".

I would also like to know who "argues against healthcare".  What a rediculous statement.  As if we conservatives don't want anyone to have health care.  As if we don't all have family members who get sick, and wish we had a system of health care to make them better.

Aside from that, your idiotic rant against war in general demonstrates what a partisan hack you are.  Anyone who is against "all war" is a coward.  A coward that is willing to let the bullies of the world run rampant over the weak.  A coward that doesn't believe in standing up against evil.  And there is EVIL in this world, whether you want to believe it or not.  Evil men who cut people's heads off, rape women and kill children.  And yes killing children includes the unborn.


----------



## manifold (Jul 1, 2011)

Shogun said:


> Across the country, Republicans and Democrats are wrangling over proposed changes to state abortion laws. On Tuesday, the Ohio House of Representatives voted on a measure that has the power to transform the states  and the nations  abortion dialogue. In a landmark move, the House voted 54 to 43 to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat becomes detectable to doctors.
> 
> The measure, known as the Heartbeat Bill, has been touted by Republicans in the state, with the majority of them voting affirmatively for its passage. There has been no shortage of controversy surrounding the proposal, as a heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks (by some accounts, it can be found even earlier). Also, the measure does not include exemptions for rape or incest, but it does include one for the health of the mother. Reuters has more about this intriguing legislative initiative:
> 
> Should Abortion Be Illegal Once a Heartbeat Is Detectable? | Breaking news and opinion on The Blaze



That's a good question.  At this point it's all about haggling over where to draw the line anyway.  A heartbeat doesn't sound unreasonable.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 2, 2011)

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey



theHawk said:


> Maybe you should ask yourself that if you support the murder of an unborn child, why should the rest of us believe you are sincere in your concerns for "the living".....



So how many children do you have?  Are you going to adopt? Will you pay higher taxes for all the children? Please don't masturbate or let a month go by without impregnating your wife as that constitutes the killing of cells too, murder in your words? If you are a women are you willing to take care of the frozen embryos and bring them to fruition? You did protest the sanctions and bombing of innocents right? Do you pay for research so each fertilization comes to term? And since life matters so much are you a vegetarian? Animals are more advanced than the cells you argue for? You do fight hard for the living child that dies every 15 seconds as we live? You do right? Or are you as I claim above a total hypocrite whose mind and moral worth hasn't gotten beyond the fact birth choices and raising children is work and requires mature decisions and that cells are not people, and if they are you better live up to the standards set above, not doing so would make you a hypocrite who does nothing but preach. After you have done all of the above come back and preach.

No religion has ever defined when human life begins. Catholicism considers sexual activity as procreative activity and thus wrong outside of marriage or for pleasure and not the propagation of the faith. 

Until recent history, a child was only considered a person after the age of seven. Death before then meant the soul went to a place called purgatory. Considering that none of this is known nor verifiable, without direct communication with a gawd it hasn't any relevance. 


"It seems to me that a case can be made for taking a human life statute that dates the origin of personhood at conception to be an "establishment" of religious doctrine. The argument runs as follows. For reasons given above, it is quite contrary to common sense to claim that a newly fertilized human ovum is already an actual person. Employing the term 'person' in the normal fashion, no one thinks of a fertilized egg in that way. The only arguments that have been advanced to the conclusion that fertilized eggs are people, common sense notwithstanding, are arguments with theological premises. These premises are part of large theological and philosophical systems that are very much worthy of respect indeed, but they can neither be established nor refuted without critical discussion of the whole systems of which they form a part. In fact, many conscientious persons reject them, often in favor of doctrines stemming from rival theological systems; so for the state to endorse the personhood of newly fertilized ova would be for the state to embrace one set of controversial theological tenets rather than others, in effect to enforce the teaching of some churches against those of other churches (and nonchurches), and to back up this enforcement with severe criminal penalties. The state plays this constitutionally prohibited role when it officially affirms a doctrine that is opposed to common sense and understanding and whose only proposed arguments proceed from theological premises. This case, it seems to me, is a good one even if there is reason, as there might be, for affirming the personhood of fetuses in the second or third trimester of pregnancy." Joel Feinberg, Abortion


----------



## Douger (Jul 2, 2011)

From the looks of kids today I think it should be legal up to age 18 !


----------



## editec (Jul 2, 2011)

> *Should Abortion Be Illegal Once a Heartbeat Is Detectable? *


 
*A heartbeat is detectable by 42 days gestational ... *

*Here's what the (Embryo size = 0.5 inch, 12 mm) fetus looks like at that point in gestation*


----------



## theHawk (Jul 2, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> "Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow. So this is what your arguement boils down to.  Comparing a growing embryo with other cells like unfertilized eggs.  I would say your just an idiot for not knowing the difference, but I honestly don't believe even you are that dumb, I just think you are being disingenuous at this point.  
You've gotten to the point where now you are saying pro-lifers are hypocrits because they eat steak. 

This has nothing to do with reliigion.  Why would I care if most religions "don't define when life begins"?  So just because Hindu doesn't define when life begins, that means the debate is over.  

Also, I love the quote....not allowing a woman to kill her unborn child is considered a "form of rape".

You wackos need to be put in a mental hospital.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 2, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > signelect said:
> ...



And you want the government in charge of those measures. That is about as unAmerican as it gets.
SCARY.
The Constitution limits the power of government. The Founders knew that and wanted that and had NO restrictions against abortion.
You may believe they were ignorant and backward but I don't.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 2, 2011)

theHawk said:


> Of course it should be illegal at that point.
> 
> Its amazing how liberals pick and choose which scientific facts to ignore.  They don't want to admit that the unborn has its own DNA and its growing right from the begining.
> 
> Its also rather amazing that liberals don't want the people to have any say on the subject.  Any attempts of bringing the subject to the people for a vote is met with fury.  And yet Americans consistantly vote that abortion should not be used freely as birth control.



conservative and religious women have abortions also, try to fix that myopia you suffer from.


----------



## LilOlLady (Jul 2, 2011)

Doesn't make any difference if it is illegally except women will be getting back alley abortions and the woman would be in danger of her life. Illegal never stopped women from having abortion or stopped any other kind of murder. The death penalty were suppose to stop murders. Guns don't kill but they do.



*Dangers of illegal abortions*. Before the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion throughout the U.S., abortions were allowed in some of the states. In 1972, 586,800 legal abortions were performed in those states.8 It is estimated that between 200,000 and 1,200,000 illegal abortions were also performed each year in the U.S.9 Many women living in areas where abortion was not allowed simply traveled to states or countries where abortion was legal to terminate their pregnancies. Those who could not afford that option often sought out someone to perform the procedure illegally. Some sympathetic doctors were willing to help. But many illegal abortions were performed by unqualified practitioners, and many women suffered exploitation, sexual abuse, injury, infection, sterility and even death at the hands of these "back alley" practitioners.10,11,12 Despite some claims to the contrary, the mainstream of medical opinion is that legal abortions are very safe, with less risk to a woman's physical and mental health than continuing a pregnancy.13 
What does the Bible say about abortion?


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 2, 2011)

theHawk said:


> ....Also, I love the quote....not allowing a woman to kill her unborn child is considered a "form of rape".
> 
> You wackos need to be put in a mental hospital.



Say what you like, it the pudding that counts, you care not for the living child as your political philosophy attests to too often, but you really really care about a few cells. Life is a powerful force you needn't worry about it, in the end it is the wackos as you name us who are pro-life, you are simply pro-controlling another person's life. Manage your own life and keep out of other's people's lives, this is still a free country in spite of religion based politics. Judge yourself. 

"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time."
HISTORY OF ABORTION
Boston Review &mdash; Judith Jarvis Thomson
Top 10 Anti-Abortion Myths - Top 10 Myths About Abortion
Why Francis Beckwith


----------



## theHawk (Jul 2, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > ....Also, I love the quote....not allowing a woman to kill her unborn child is considered a "form of rape".
> ...



What evidence do you have that my political philosophy attests to not caring for the living?

That is such an idiotic statement, it must be that "republicans don't believe in health care" thing you libs keep repeating to yourself.

Repeating the same bullshit over and over to yourself doesn't make it true, even if you start to believe in it.


----------



## xsited1 (Jul 2, 2011)

Shogun said:


> Across the country, Republicans and Democrats are wrangling over proposed changes to state abortion laws. On Tuesday, the Ohio House of Representatives voted on a measure that has the power to transform the states  and the nations  abortion dialogue. In a landmark move, the House voted 54 to 43 to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat becomes detectable to doctors.
> 
> The measure, known as the Heartbeat Bill, has been touted by Republicans in the state, with the majority of them voting affirmatively for its passage. There has been no shortage of controversy surrounding the proposal, as a heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks (by some accounts, it can be found even earlier). Also, the measure does not include exemptions for rape or incest, but it does include one for the health of the mother. Reuters has more about this intriguing legislative initiative:
> 
> Should Abortion Be Illegal Once a Heartbeat Is Detectable? | Breaking news and opinion on The Blaze



Planned Parenthood would go bankrupt and the black population would explode if this law passes.  Can't have that.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 2, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I may be wrong asshole but I'm no idiot.  If all you've got is name calling I'm done reasoning with you.  Making a statement that "everyone already knows" without proof is an acknowledgement your argument is weak.


----------



## manifold (Jul 2, 2011)

Funny how rabid abortion rights activists don't also rabidly support prostitution rights.

If the argument is one about sovereignty over one's own body, then they should just as vociferously support legalization of prostitution.  Yet they don't.

That should tell you something.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 3, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Wry likes to pretend that he thinks there's a widespread epidemic in America of teenagers who don't know where babies come from, and have never heard of a condom.


----------



## American Cowboy (Jul 3, 2011)

These fvcking lib abortion doctors don't care, they would crash the skull of a 9 month old new born 10 minutes after ithe baby was born.

Murderers!!!

When it is moving it is alive, in or out of the womb.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 3, 2011)

manifold said:


> Funny how rabid abortion rights activists don't also rabidly support prostitution rights.
> 
> If the argument is one about sovereignty over one's own body, then they should just as vociferously support legalization of prostitution.  Yet they don't.
> 
> That should tell you something.



Well, your post tells me you don't have any evidence to support your allegation and even if you did the conclusion would not be valid.

Think about it.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 3, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



You're very dishonest Ms. Nasty and not very bright.  A condom is only one form of contraceptive, and one which won't work when the partner refuses to cooperate.  There are some guys who measure their manhood by how many girls they impregnate.  An IUD, Diaphram or the Pill are effective tools too, but do not protect from STD.  Ignoring power and control issues in tween and teenage relationships suggests to me your ignorance maybe more than willful.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 3, 2011)

American Cowboy said:


> These fvcking lib abortion doctors don't care, they would crash the skull of a 9 month old new born 10 minutes after ithe baby was born.
> 
> Murderers!!!
> 
> When it is moving it is alive, in or out of the womb.



Just think, our great leader was one of the few people to fight against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act while in Chicago, which made it illegal for doctors to kill babies that survived abortions.


----------



## Montrovant (Jul 3, 2011)

manifold said:


> Funny how rabid abortion rights activists don't also rabidly support prostitution rights.
> 
> If the argument is one about sovereignty over one's own body, then they should just as vociferously support legalization of prostitution.  Yet they don't.
> 
> That should tell you something.



I'm all for prostitution being legalized!  It's absolutely an issue of people being allowed to do what they want with their own bodies.

Then again, I'm not rabidly for abortion rights.  I'm for abortion being legal, but I have no problem with limits.  I don't know if a detectable heartbeat is a good indicator of a cut-off point, I'm more concerned with brain development, but having a specific medical indicator used as a determining factor for when abortions are no longer legal makes sense to me.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 3, 2011)

daveman said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



Wry is demonstrating the popular liberal deflection technique, whereby they insist that nothing can be done on XYZ issue, until such time as the world is an utterly perfect place . . . _as defined by liberals_.  Since the world will never be perfect by anyone's definition, much less by the insane, head-up-the-ass naive standards of liberals, nothing can ever be done on the issues liberals don't want changed.

I wonder if Wry and his comrades would be willing to accept reverse logic:  no bill on the environment, healthcare, etc. can ever be passed unless it ALSO contains provisions to restrict abortions.  Think they'd consider that as reasonable as demanding that a bill to restrict abortion has to also completely eliminate liberal-defined evils?


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 3, 2011)

American Cowboy said:


> These fvcking lib abortion doctors don't care, they would crash the skull of a 9 month old new born 10 minutes after ithe baby was born.
> 
> Murderers!!!
> 
> When it is moving it is alive, in or out of the womb.



Yes, we need to save them all, for the heretosexual pedophiles.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 3, 2011)

manifold said:


> Funny how rabid abortion rights activists don't also rabidly support prostitution rights.
> 
> If the argument is one about sovereignty over one's own body, then they should just as vociferously support legalization of prostitution.  Yet they don't.
> 
> That should tell you something.



Huh?  Prostitution should be legal and is legal in Nevada. Are you going to protest that right too? No one 'rabidly' supports abortion, it is a decision that would be impossible for me to make anyway. It is why I call most so called pro-life people phonies, they preach but for males cannot even experience the great pain it can cause. And if the 'pro-controlling another person's life' crowd cared about life they'd have different attitudes on life and prevention and education. They only care about a religious position that others don't share. They love the holier than thou position and the ease in which they can moralize as they stand on the high ground of hypocrisy. 

HISTORY OF ABORTION
Boston Review &mdash; Judith Jarvis Thomson
Top 10 Anti-Abortion Myths - Top 10 Myths About Abortion
Why Francis Beckwith


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 3, 2011)

manifold said:


> Funny how rabid abortion rights activists don't also rabidly support prostitution rights.
> 
> If the argument is one about sovereignty over one's own body, then they should just as vociferously support legalization of prostitution.  Yet they don't.
> 
> That should tell you something.



Who has "rabidly" supported abortion rights?
That is your term without any fact to support it.
Prostitution is the perfect example of how many are prosecuted and those with the means and good attorneys are not.
Good example of why government should stay out of abortion. Thanks.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 3, 2011)

American Cowboy said:


> These fvcking lib abortion doctors don't care, they would crash the skull of a 9 month old new born 10 minutes after ithe baby was born.
> 
> Murderers!!!
> 
> When it is moving it is alive, in or out of the womb.



At least you have the brains to address the real world situation here.
DOCTORS perform abortions and DOCTORS will always perform the abortions whether abortion is legal or not.
No one here addresses that FACT. 
Why?
Because that fact deflates their "abortion is horrible" argument which is fact but has no foundation as to what can be done to stop it.
No law stops abortion. Never has or will. 
Families teach their kids to not have abortions. You can not legislate over the power of the medical lobby, EVER. Not when the "safety and health of the mother" is ALWAYS  an affirmative defense for any and all doctors.
Real world. You folks need to grow up and learn.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 3, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> American Cowboy said:
> 
> 
> > These fvcking lib abortion doctors don't care, they would crash the skull of a 9 month old new born 10 minutes after ithe baby was born.
> ...



Wow what logic.  We shouldn't make something illegal because "someone will do it anyway".

By that reasoning nothing should be illegal.  We shouldn't have laws that make rape illegal because men will always do it anyway!!!


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 3, 2011)

Shogun said:


> The measure, known as the Heartbeat Bill, has been touted by Republicans in the state, with the majority of them voting affirmatively for its passage. There has been no shortage of controversy surrounding the proposal, as a heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks (by some accounts, it can be found even earlier). *Also, the measure does not include exemptions for rape or incest, but it does include one for the health of the mother.*



Why no exemption for rape or incest? Alternatively, why allow _any_ exemptions at all?

Anyone have a coherent thought process on this?


----------



## manifold (Jul 3, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how rabid abortion rights activists don't also rabidly support prostitution rights.
> ...



It's an adjective you douchewagon.  And your posts alone support it's usage.

and then some


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 3, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > The measure, known as the Heartbeat Bill, has been touted by Republicans in the state, with the majority of them voting affirmatively for its passage. There has been no shortage of controversy surrounding the proposal, as a heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks (by some accounts, it can be found even earlier). *Also, the measure does not include exemptions for rape or incest, but it does include one for the health of the mother.*
> ...



You don't see the difference between "the pregnancy's in trouble and the mother's going to die" and "the pregnancy's perfectly normal, but the mother doesn't want the baby to exist"?


----------



## xsited1 (Jul 3, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > The measure, known as the Heartbeat Bill, has been touted by Republicans in the state, with the majority of them voting affirmatively for its passage. There has been no shortage of controversy surrounding the proposal, as a heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks (by some accounts, it can be found even earlier). *Also, the measure does not include exemptions for rape or incest, but it does include one for the health of the mother.*
> ...



Since a baby in the womb has no rights, just kill it whenever it's convenient.  Just make sure it's eliminated before it pops out.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 3, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> You don't see the difference between "the pregnancy's in trouble and the mother's going to die" and "the pregnancy's perfectly normal, but the mother doesn't want the baby to exist"?



Rhetorical questions are generally poor stand-ins for actual arguments. If you're drawing moral distinctions, then go ahead and sketch them out. That is, after all, what I requested. Does whatever framework you're operating in distinguish between rape or incest and other pregnancies?


----------



## chikenwing (Jul 3, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > You don't see the difference between "the pregnancy's in trouble and the mother's going to die" and "the pregnancy's perfectly normal, but the mother doesn't want the baby to exist"?
> ...



The framework is ,its a human,at any stage.So your father rapes your sister,killing your brother for the crime,well just doesn't make a whole  bunch of sense.

If you don't except that an unborn child at any time along the way has a right to life then all the rhetorical questions,along with logic mean nothing.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 3, 2011)

theHawk said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > American Cowboy said:
> ...



So you want laws to make it illegal yet you have no clue on how that is done.
So let me further educate you but this getting old beating up on defenseless folk like you that do not know HOW the law works in their own country.
Ok, we repeal Roe today. You do know that is what has to happen, DON'T YOU?
So it goes back to the states. YOU DO KNOW that each state in this great nation HAS THEIR *OWN *CRIMINAL CODE?
Are you claimining EVERY state will have THE SAME laws on abortion?
Even I do not believe you are that stupid.
So each state HAS THEIR OWN laws on what constitutes an illegal abortion.
And they will all be different.
Some states will ban it outright, NO exceptions unless it was rape or incest or whatever and then ONLY, a state entity of some kind WILL BE THE DETERMINER of who gets prosecuted and who doesn't. This is their right if they want that and that is the law. 
Some states will ban it with some restrictions. That is also their right and I support that also.
Some states will allow it with some or many restrictions. Again, that is their right.
Some states will allow it at will, no laws to restrict it. Againk that is their right.
So what do we have as THE LAW across this great land sports fans:
Women will be able to live where they want in America. If you live in a state that bans abortions THEN YOU CAN NOT get one there and if you do you should be prosecuted and convicted and sentenced. 
If you have some $$ drive your car or take a flight to a state that allows it.
WELL DUH!
And the net result is NO law in America will stop a woman with $$ to get an abortion.
The women it would stop, as they could not leave the state, will have their babies that they didn't want in the first place and do not have a clue how to raise.
WELL DUH!
Worse than we are now.


----------



## daveman (Jul 3, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Wry is demonstrating the popular liberal deflection technique, whereby they insist that nothing can be done on XYZ issue, until such time as the world is an utterly perfect place . . . _as defined by liberals_.  Since the world will never be perfect by anyone's definition, much less by the insane, head-up-the-ass naive standards of liberals, nothing can ever be done on the issues liberals don't want changed.


Bunch of petulant children, aren't they?  "If you don't play by my rules, I'll take my ball and go home!"


Cecilie1200 said:


> I wonder if Wry and his comrades would be willing to accept reverse logic:  no bill on the environment, healthcare, etc. can ever be passed unless it ALSO contains provisions to restrict abortions.  Think they'd consider that as reasonable as demanding that a bill to restrict abortion has to also completely eliminate liberal-defined evils?


Unreasonable people are incapable of accepting the reasonable.


----------



## chikenwing (Jul 3, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



so just do nothing?? weak


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 3, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > You don't see the difference between "the pregnancy's in trouble and the mother's going to die" and "the pregnancy's perfectly normal, but the mother doesn't want the baby to exist"?
> ...



It's not a stand-in, dumbass.  You asked for the thought process, and you got it.  The fact that you got it in a form indicating my stunned disbelief that you're so ignorant as to have to ask doesn't let you pretend that you didn't get your answer.

Why would rape or incest distinguish the _pregnancy _from any other?  It distinguishes the _sexual encounter _from a consensual one between non-related parties, but a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus is a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus.

What kind of fool blames an innocent baby for the actions of its biological progenitors?


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 3, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> It's not a stand-in, dumbass.  You asked for the thought process, and you got it.  The fact that you got it in a form indicating my stunned disbelief that you're so ignorant as to have to ask doesn't let you pretend that you didn't get your answer.



"You don't believe X and Y are different?" is not an explanation of why X and Y are different, stunned disbelief or no. It certainly doesn't provide much of an analytical framework from which to proceed to other facets of the issue.



> Why would rape or incest distinguish the _pregnancy _from any other?  It distinguishes the _sexual encounter _from a consensual one between non-related parties, but a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus is a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus.



Presumably this is more stunned disbelief, but close that slack jaw, these have been standard caveats in the Hyde Amendment since the mid-1970s. The implication of such distinctions, of course, is that biology alone is insufficient for understanding the issue and in fact a strong cultural/social component exists. I assume you take the opposite view, but since you can't seem to articulate your thought process I suppose there could be something else at work.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jul 3, 2011)

Technically/Constitutionally speaking, laws on things like abortion
should "ideally" be made by consensus, to reflect the public equally
without favoring or imposing one view over opposing views.

However, after liberal/Democrats have pushed for government endorsement of
the health care bill without consent of the taxpaying citizens opposed to mandates,
and after gay marriage was endorsed under state government,
this opens the door for other legislation to be passed, whether or not it carries
the consent of the entire population governed.

I disagree with this trend, but if people approve for majority-rule to be used this
way, then I respect what they consent to.

I remain concerned for those who DO NOT agree for majority-rule to be used this way.
However, to be fair, I must argue that many of these people DID IT TO THEMSELVES.
If you are okay with majority rule used to impose laws you agree with against
the opposition of those who dissent, 
can you REALLY complain when the shoe is on the other foot?

This is why I argue for conflict resolution, and public policy to reflect points of agreement.
NOT abusing majority-rule to impose policies without solving the source of the conflict!

(NOTE: for this bill in itself, I am fine either way, if people agree to make it illegal or legal; my issue is whether the consent of the governed is represented equally. I do not rely on legislation to determine for me what is right or wrong. Regardless of legislative decisions, I would still do as I do now, and seek to prevent relationship abuse and unwanted pregnancies/abortions that result, by education and awareness, not by force of law.)


----------



## emilynghiem (Jul 3, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Why would rape or incest distinguish the _pregnancy _from any other?  It distinguishes the _sexual encounter _from a consensual one between non-related parties, but a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus is a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus.
> 
> What kind of fool blames an innocent baby for the actions of its biological progenitors?



Dear C: Aside from the baby being affected in both cases, wouldn't you agree the mother is more affected than the father?

Can you really write an abortion bill that is not going to affect the mothers/women
more than the fathers/men who contributed to the pregnancy?

NOTE: the only way I have found to be fair is to focus on intervening early to prevent "relationships abuse" that implicates men and women equally in relationships. So any abuse would become both people's responsibility to resolve by counseling, which would also do more to prevent unwanted pregnancy/children/abortion in the first place.

That would be more fair and more effective; any complaints of relationship abuse could be addressed as a violation of "health and safety standards" BEFORE it becomes a civil or criminal violation. So like the OSHA codes, people would have a chance to answer to or correct the complaint to avoid any further action. As for fear such a procedure could be abused, false complaints and abuse of the process would also constitute violations (as a form of harassment or malicious prosecution/frivilous lawsuits/false reports/slander/libel).

If we had such a system of conflict resolution to redress grievances, perhaps we could hash out personal/political/religious differences civilly and locally first, instead of waiting for conflicts to escalate on a state or national level to become a political competition in Courts or Congress over how laws are written and whose party has a majority of seats.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 3, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > It's not a stand-in, dumbass.  You asked for the thought process, and you got it.  The fact that you got it in a form indicating my stunned disbelief that you're so ignorant as to have to ask doesn't let you pretend that you didn't get your answer.
> ...



You didn't ASK me to explain why they were different.  You ASKED why they would include an exemption for one, but not for the other.  The answer is that they are different.  If you're not happy with the answers to your questions, maybe you should try asking the right question.

And by the way, if you work on your reading comprehension a tad, you might notice that my response ALSO included the reason why they are different:

_"the pregnancy's in trouble and the mother's going to die" and "the pregnancy's perfectly normal, but the mother doesn't want the baby to exist"?_

Just because YOU don't like that distinction doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it isn't a distinction, so again, you don't get to ignore it and pretend it away.

Continuing on, the fact that people have routinely made exceptions for a set group of circumstances in the past does NOT mean those circumstances are equivalent, or that they are permanently linked and indivisible.  Clearly, these lawmakers have decided that their overriding interest is in protecting healthy, viable pregnancies, so they only made an exception for pregnancies that don't meet that description, for whatever reason.  This should all be painfully obvious to anyone who thinks enough to recognize that other points of view besides their own exist, and actually have reasons for doing so besides "You're stupid!".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 3, 2011)

emilynghiem said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Why would rape or incest distinguish the _pregnancy _from any other?  It distinguishes the _sexual encounter _from a consensual one between non-related parties, but a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus is a normal pregnancy with a healthy fetus.
> ...



The question is not the efffect on either of the progenitors at all.  I don't actually CARE which of them is "affected more".  My concern begins and ends with the innocent, helpless human being who's also going to be the only one dead at the end of the process.  The fact that his male progenitor - I refuse to call him a "father" - is a rapist does NOT make it okay in my book to punish the baby for his crimes.  Ditto for any incestuous decisions made by one or both of the parents.

It's not my job, or anyone else's, to write laws "rectifying" nature and biology, or attempting to make life and the universe "fair".  It can't be done, and only children and fools consider that to be a viable, achievable goal.

Besides, if you want to talk about being "fair", how fair is it for a baby to get the death penalty for someone else's behavior?

Honestly, and I really don't mean this to be rude, but I didn't even understand the rest of your vague, feel-good babble here.  What, precisely, are you proposing?  Legally-mandated counseling for anyone and everyone in a relationship?  Even if anyone was likely to accept that premise, what do you do about women who are raped by total strangers?

A little clarity and specificity would go a long way here.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 4, 2011)

daveman said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry is demonstrating the popular liberal deflection technique, whereby they insist that nothing can be done on XYZ issue, until such time as the world is an utterly perfect place . . . _as defined by liberals_.  Since the world will never be perfect by anyone's definition, much less by the insane, head-up-the-ass naive standards of liberals, nothing can ever be done on the issues liberals don't want changed.
> ...



Your premise is that only liberals oppose making the govermment the determiner of who legally receives an abortion and who doesn't.
Most every conservative I know does not waht government involved in abortion.
Something about limiting the power of government which was practiced by the Founders.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 4, 2011)

chikenwing said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



To those that have no understanding of how the law works in this great nation it would appear as weak. Ignorance is no excuse.
And what do you offer as a solution? Nothing.
Extremely weak. You have no clue.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 4, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You stand for giving GOVERNMENT the power to determine who can and who can not have an abortion when a family member was raped.
Classic LIBERALISM.
You are a closet liberal.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 4, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Yes I am aware of all that.  Overturning Roe is only going to give the power back to the States (States pretty much already do have different abortion laws; it is much tougher to get an abortion in the Midwest than California/Mass for example).
That doesn't mean that the laws shouldn't be made in each state.  Making a crime more difficult to commit will make it happen less.  Not every woman is going to be able to travel across half the country to get an abortion.  That is at least progress.  

And there is also the possibility a federal law could be passed to outlaw abortion.  Realistically I think the best we will ever have is an abortion law only allowing for it if the mother's life is in danger or if she was raped.  But you will be amazed at how many liberals would oppose even that.


----------



## chikenwing (Jul 4, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



No the stance is for not killing the innocent. religion aside,gov,aside its still a person,just small,and totally unable to defend his/her self.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 4, 2011)

> That doesn't mean that the laws shouldn't be made in each state. Making a crime more difficult to commit will make it happen less. Not every woman is going to be able to travel across half the country to get an abortion. That is at least progress.



No, thats not progress, thats un-Constitutional: its a violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, in addition to a violation of ones privacy rights. By your reasoning, a state may ban Blacks from voting, and if they dont like it, they can move to a state where Blacks are allowed to vote. The states are therefore ill-equipped to address this issue, given some states propensity to violate privacy rights, with regard to abortion: 



> _In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey_, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The _Casey_ decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:
> 
>  These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define ones own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. Ibid.
> 
> _Lawrence v Texas_ (2003)





> And there is also the possibility a federal law could be passed to outlaw abortion. Realistically I think the best we will ever have is an abortion law only allowing for it if the mother's life is in danger or if she was raped. But you will be amazed at how many liberals would oppose even that.



No, its not possible, the Constitution enjoins Congress from violating ones right to privacy as it does the states. 

And this has noting to do with liberals, or what they oppose, it has only to do with the rule of law and the Courts decision becoming the law of the land.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 4, 2011)

chikenwing said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Exactly.  The proper job of government has always been to protect the rights of its citizens, and if one does not have the right to be alive, one has no rights at all.  Expecting government to protect the lives of helpless infants falls into exactly the same category as expecting government to protect ME from having corrosive substances sprayed on me, or someone chopping me into pieces, or someone punching a hole in my skull and suctioning my brain out.


----------



## daveman (Jul 4, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


I fully support a woman's right to choose what to do with her body.

But that right ends where another human being's body starts.  And her baby is another human being.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 4, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> You didn't ASK me to explain why they were different.  You ASKED why they would include an exemption for one, but not for the other.  The answer is that they are different.  If you're not happy with the answers to your questions, maybe you should try asking the right question.



When I asked for a "coherent thought process," I was looking for an argument. In this case, I'm interested in why X and not Y. "They're different," while a nice answer, isn't really getting at what I'm asking. What I'm asking with "why X and not Y" can be broken down into a request for the line of thinking that explains _both_ 1) why X, and 2) why not Y. 

If the answer in your case is based on emotion or otherwise just _is_--i.e. doesn't follow from an argument but is some set of first principles--that's fine, that's the answer. But if there's a framework that could be used by or convince a person who isn't you, I'd be interested in hearing that.



> Continuing on, the fact that people have routinely made exceptions for a set group of circumstances in the past does NOT mean those circumstances are equivalent, or that they are permanently linked and indivisible.



It certainly doesn't! Hence the value of a coherent thought process for making and understanding the distinctions.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Exactly.  The proper job of government has always been to protect the rights of its citizens, and if one does not have the right to be alive, one has no rights at all.  Expecting government to protect the lives of helpless infants falls into exactly the same category as expecting government to protect ME from having corrosive substances sprayed on me, or someone chopping me into pieces, or someone punching a hole in my skull and suctioning my brain out.



These references to citizens and infants again leave me wondering how exactly your thought process works, as infancy and citizenship are associated with a period _after_ birth. Do you favor replacing birthright citizenship with conception-right citizenship, such that anyone conceived in the United States is conferred citizenship immediately? If not, and your understanding of the role of government is that it should protect the lives of citizens and infants, what is the connection here to abortion?


----------



## Care4all (Jul 4, 2011)

Not certain if this has been said yet, since I only got about a quarter of the way through reading the posts in this thread....

BUT, why in the world are Pro-life posters agreeing with this measure when I had THOUGHT, that the argument of the Pro-life side was that "Life begins at conception", and any killing of an embryo or fetus in any stage of life, is murder?

So WHAT gives?

Are you all NOW agreeing with the pro-choice side, that this entity is not a human being until there is some vital sign of such....in the example of this bill....when the heart actually starts beating?


also:

oh, and those that mention heartbeat as a sign of life or not....a human being is not declared dead until their brain waves show them as dead....it has nothing to do with their heart beating on it's own or not....at least that is my understanding of it...???  (hmmm...of course when the heart stops, eventually the blood will stop flowing to the brain and ones brain waves will stop....?)


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 5, 2011)

chikenwing said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Where has anyone ever denied that?
A woman that is pregnant and does not eat right is killing her child.
And you would want government to stop that.
A woman that is pregnant and smokes crack and does meth is killing her child.
You would want testing of all pregnant women to stop that.
Women smoke and drink excessively while pregnant.
Women do not watch their kids as toddlers in many cases and the toddler falls into the pool or off the deck.
But of course we need the government watch dog to make sure that does not happen either.

Oppose wanting government to legislate the diet of pregnant women and one is labeled a baby killer and anti children.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 5, 2011)

daveman said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



The fetus is part of her body Dave. 
You need something else to support because you are not supporting your own words.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 5, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



OK, you are half way there as I have been asking and asking and asking HOW does government accomplish what you guys claim you stand for so for the 131st time:
HOW DO YOU STOP ABORTION?
Again, you do know that EACH STATE HAS THEIR OWN criminal code.
What law stops it and how is it worded?
Is "if the doctor believes by his medical standard and ethics that the mother's life is at risk" in any of the state laws? No offense here but anyone that has worked in the criminal courts for 30 years knows that language damn sure will be in every state law nationwide.
And that language is abortion at will for those with cash.
And the real world allows some form of that language in any and all medical procedures be it the sniffles, heart or brain surgery for pregnant women. 
So what laws do you propose, specifically, to ban abortion? And how is it worded around the medical lobby?


----------



## daveman (Jul 5, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


Her baby is a genetically distinct human being.  Period.


----------



## chikenwing (Jul 5, 2011)

The fetus is part of her body Dave.
You need something else to support because you are not supporting your own words.



Did these people go to their 8th grade health classes?

All of these type of excuses,and thats what they are.They are used because if they actually used the right words like person,baby, human ,and other words like rights and innocent.

That would be admitting that they support the mass killing of innocent little people,and well you just can't have that.


----------



## daveman (Jul 5, 2011)

chikenwing said:


> The fetus is part of her body Dave.
> You need something else to support because you are not supporting your own words.
> 
> 
> ...


That's why the left is utterly dependent on redefining words.  They can't defend their ideas with standard definitions, because people won't go along with it.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 5, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



up until this point in this thread ALL YOU have been doing is name calling.

In this thread you've become the poster fetus for ad homs.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 5, 2011)

Care4all said:


> Not certain if this has been said yet, since I only got about a quarter of the way through reading the posts in this thread....
> 
> BUT, why in the world are Pro-life posters agreeing with this measure when I had THOUGHT, that the argument of the Pro-life side was that "Life begins at conception", and any killing of an embryo or fetus in any stage of life, is murder?
> 
> ...



I won't answer for anyone else but, as the one who posted this thread, it's a matter of finding a compromise; as I mentioned in my second post in reference to my very first post at USMB.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 5, 2011)

Care4all said:


> Not certain if this has been said yet, since I only got about a quarter of the way through reading the posts in this thread....
> 
> BUT, why in the world are Pro-life posters agreeing with this measure when I had THOUGHT, that the argument of the Pro-life side was that "Life begins at conception", and any killing of an embryo or fetus in any stage of life, is murder?
> 
> ...



ps, brain waves are in direct correlation with the cardiopulmonary system. Defibrillators aren't just fancy toys.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 5, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



A fetus is genetically distinct and, therefor, NOT part of "her body".

thanks for playing.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 5, 2011)

In closing, I posted this thread because, again, I am reminded of my very first attempt to find common ground among a highly contention issue.  I didn't mean for this thread to turn into yet another argument over abortion in general.  However, the instant contention associated with this issue illustrates just how silly it is to believe that RvW is a done deal.  If Prohibition wasn't sealed in stone then neither is RvW in an era of a myriad of birth control options and total disregard for responsible sexual promiscuity.


and, for fucks sake liberal...  AS a liberal you make me cringe every time you leap onto your demagoguery rather than understand that you sit on a sinking boat.  I'm embarrassed that I share a side of the political spectrum with you while your sole rebuttal is ad homs and bullshit arguments about incest... while totally ignoring the genetic FACTS sitting in your face.  You act as if minorities and women in general are like fucking dogs who MUST instinctually fuck without consideration on the product of their decisions.


seriously, Wry Catcher, you sound like a guy who once got a hand job at a Lilith Fair concert and will now tow any line necessary to recreate the moment (even if it means you have to take that strap-on in the ass AGAIN).  Stop being so hilariously hypocritical with the ad hom accusations, ok?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 5, 2011)

daveman said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > The fetus is part of her body Dave.
> ...



I am not the left so once again your argument makes no sense.
I know of no one be they left, right, whatever that is pro abortion. 
Sounds great as a sound bite on 30 second blitz.
I was voting Republican before you were born.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 5, 2011)

Shogun said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



So a fetus can live on it's own without the mother.
You folks are not very smart.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 5, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



"living on its own" is not the standard by which genetics functions.

  *snicker snicker*

Please, tell me more about this thing you call "smart".


----------



## daveman (Jul 5, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...


Was I talking to you, or about you?  Hint:  No.


----------



## daveman (Jul 5, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


Did I say that?

You're not so smart yourself.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 5, 2011)

You'll have to forgive Gadawg73...  She's still having problems acclimating to germ theory and Pasteurization.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 5, 2011)

Shogun said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



Show me where genetics has anything to do with abortion and maybe your credibility will leap above zero.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 5, 2011)

Shogun said:


> You'll have to forgive Gadawg73...  She's still having problems acclimating to germ theory and Pasteurization.



You are once again wrong. 
Imagine that.
I am a HE.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 5, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Clearly, you have no dog in an intelligent race.

Genetics proves that a fetus is not of the same genetic material as the mother.  End of story.  A FETUS does NOT have the same DNA as the mother.  comprendo?



Tell me more about "credibility" after proving what kind of a mouth-breathing idiot you are.  Seriously, dude.  Just stop before you become an easier target as someone who CLEARLY has no idea what the fuck they are talking about in this thread.




*"Show me where genetics has anything to do with abortion"*


----------



## Shogun (Jul 5, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > You'll have to forgive Gadawg73...  She's still having problems acclimating to germ theory and Pasteurization.
> ...



That is not what your box of tampons say.

Go read a book about science, you dumb geriatric bastard.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 5, 2011)

Shogun said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



And what does that have to do with the laws on abortion?
Genetics plays a part in who gets prosecuted or who doesn't under a state's criminal code?


You have no clue. Abortion is a LEGAL argument. Roe v. Wade is the law now.
We are a nation of LAWS, not men.
Something about The US Constitution, a document you are ignorant of, that was founded on limiting the power of government.
But keep it up. Your "arguments" are entertaining.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 5, 2011)

Shogun said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



So now we have claims that the laws on abortion are based on not only genetics but all science. 
I LOVE IT!
I always know when someone has lost an argument and admits defeat.
They have no argument and are left with ONLY insults.
But go ahead. I have been shot at, beat up and left for dead.
Sticks and stones.
Come back when you have an argument on the laws on the books and what it will take to repeal Roe.
But I doubt you are intelligent enough to think that far.


----------



## elvis (Jul 5, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



In which video game were you beat up?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 6, 2011)

elvis said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



You folks are the perfect example of the American mentality, never address and work on THE PROBLEM.
Abortion is  A LARGE PROBLEM that I oppose. I am adamantly opposed to abortion.
Your approach is similar to what we do with our "security" at airports. "Oh, terrorism is a real problem so we have to search for weapons" is their insane policy.
The Isrealis do not look and search for weapons. THEY LOOK FOR TERRORISTS, profile, do anything to stop someone. That is called security.
I search for SOLUTIONS to the problems. To date you and no one else here has offered any solutuions. Laws? We know they do not work with abortion. They are the easy way out of the problem as the drug laws are. What do they do with drug problem? Ignore what causes the problem, pass laws because drug use is out of control and label the drug laws that "control substances". As if we have any control over them now.
Go ahead and take the easy road and jump on that band wagon.
I set the bar higher and search for ways to prevent women from making that terrible decision to have an abortion.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 6, 2011)

Your "higher bar" is achieving a bowel movement every other day, you goofy old fucker.  The OP of this thread IS a compromise on a contentious issue that isn't going anywhere regardless of how many retarded "derp derp what does genetics hafta do with it derp" posts you offer.  The solution, in an age of wide-ranged options to control pregnancy IS responsibility.  No one is towing the tired bullshit from the 80s that you are having a flashback of; this isn't even a moral argument anymore.  But, given your complete and, honestly laughable, grasp on this issue beyond trite rebuttals I guess it's no wonder that your tantrum speaks louder than your retired opinion.

back to the baby food with you, urinator.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 6, 2011)

Shogun said:


> Your "higher bar" is achieving a bowel movement every other day, you goofy old fucker.  The OP of this thread IS a compromise on a contentious issue that isn't going anywhere regardless of how many retarded "derp derp what does genetics hafta do with it derp" posts you offer.  The solution, in an age of wide-ranged options to control pregnancy IS responsibility.  No one is towing the tired bullshit from the 80s that you are having a flashback of; this isn't even a moral argument anymore.  But, given your complete and, honestly laughable, grasp on this issue beyond trite rebuttals I guess it's no wonder that your tantrum speaks louder than your retired opinion.
> 
> back to the baby food with you, urinator.



Where did I make it a moral argument?
What rebuttals? From you?
You make no valid argument anywhere and stand for nothing. No where have you offered anything of any substance relative to how to stop women from having an abortion.
Fact is you are too young, naive and gullible to offer anything credible.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 6, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Your "higher bar" is achieving a bowel movement every other day, you goofy old fucker.  The OP of this thread IS a compromise on a contentious issue that isn't going anywhere regardless of how many retarded "derp derp what does genetics hafta do with it derp" posts you offer.  The solution, in an age of wide-ranged options to control pregnancy IS responsibility.  No one is towing the tired bullshit from the 80s that you are having a flashback of; this isn't even a moral argument anymore.  But, given your complete and, honestly laughable, grasp on this issue beyond trite rebuttals I guess it's no wonder that your tantrum speaks louder than your retired opinion.
> ...



You've accused the opposition of making a moral argument.  Seriously, did you shit your brain out with your Metamucil today?  I guess I'll chock this up to the same brilliance that stems from your comprehension of genetics.



Again, you can avoid the point of the OP all day long and cry like a victim in some hilarious knee-jerk reaction but smarter people than you have already posted in this thread and they all understand the valid arguments that I've made.  Go cry in your oatmeal.

Fact is, you are too old, stupid, and worthless to do more than laugh at in this thread, you fucking genetics mastermind.


----------



## manifold (Jul 7, 2011)

Good to have you back Soggy!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 7, 2011)

Shogun said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



As usual, you are real good at guessing what you believe OTHER PEOPLE believe but fall short once again of formulating any adult argument as to what your beliefs are. 

So tell us if GoBananas in the 7th at Calder at 20-1 is a good bet or not.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 8, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I'll take that as a "Ok, OK, Shogun, UNCLE!  I admit that I am a fucking idiot and probably shouldn't have posted in this thread."


----------



## Cimerian (Jul 8, 2011)

While I will admit I have not read back through this entire thread I do want to bring up one point.  It is amazing to me that a teenager who is speeding and causes a wreck can be convicted of manslaughter if an expecting mother miscarries due to the accident.  Yet that same mother could by choice get an abortion?  The definition of manslaughter is - "The unlawful killing of one human by another without express or implied intent to do injury."  So if in one case the fetus is a human why would it not be a human in the other case?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 8, 2011)

Cimerian said:


> While I will admit I have not read back through this entire thread I do want to bring up one point.  It is amazing to me that a teenager who is speeding and causes a wreck can be convicted of manslaughter if an expecting mother miscarries due to the accident.  Yet that same mother could by choice get an abortion?  The definition of manslaughter is - "The unlawful killing of one human by another without express or implied intent to do injury."  So if in one case the fetus is a human why would it not be a human in the other case?



Mostly because the same people didn't make the two laws in question, and they weren't made at the same time, so they weren't looked at for consistency between them.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 9, 2011)

Cimerian said:


> While I will admit I have not read back through this entire thread I do want to bring up one point.  It is amazing to me that a teenager who is speeding and causes a wreck can be convicted of manslaughter if an expecting mother miscarries due to the accident.  Yet that same mother could by choice get an abortion?  The definition of manslaughter is - "The unlawful killing of one human by another without express or implied intent to do injury."  So if in one case the fetus is a human why would it not be a human in the other case?



What, there are really gross contradictions in the states' criminal codes?
Here in America? How could that be? Laws ALWAYS work.
You make a very good point. One that I have been attempting to get through to the thick skulls here for a very long time.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 9, 2011)

Shogun said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



How could I give up debating you?
You never take any concrete position on anything. You are a floater.
The last time I saw something like you, I flushed it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 11, 2011)

I think the problem with Abortion is that laws to limit it, make it more frustrating to get or even outlaw it completely are pointless.  

Prohibition of alcohol didn't work because people wanted to drink. Gun control laws don't work because people want (or feel they need) guns. Prostitution is illegal, but you'd have no problem finding one if you looked. The war on Drugs has been an excercise in futility. 

The thing is, even before Roe, the laws weren't enforced very hard.  Women were never put in jail for having them, and rarely were the people who provided them prosecuted. now that it's been legal for 40 years, I don't think you'd be able to clamp down on it effectively. 

But I think that all side can agree that reducing the number of abortions would be a desirable thing.  So how do we get there?  

My thought- 

Better sex education.
Better pre-natal programs and reforming health care.
More support for adoption and showing it in a more positive light.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 11, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> I think the problem with Abortion is that laws to limit it, make it more frustrating to get or even outlaw it completely are pointless.
> 
> Prohibition of alcohol didn't work because people wanted to drink. Gun control laws don't work because people want (or feel they need) guns. Prostitution is illegal, but you'd have no problem finding one if you looked. The war on Drugs has been an excercise in futility.
> 
> ...



Your argument is based on facts and history.
It has no ideology or dreams in it so you are wasting your time and they will not listen.


----------



## St.Blues (Jul 11, 2011)

I don't like the idea of abortion... But a woman should have the right to choose.
I mind my business.
On the other side think cost... How many more woman & children would be on the tit?


----------



## Shogun (Jul 11, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



...  The same way you eventually had to give up regular undies for adult diaper: sometimes your shit flows a bit too regular to keep going.

Indeed, I've taken THIS OP as my position on the abortion issue; as stated in my very first post on this forum all those years ago, no less.

You, sir, have masticated this topic like toothless dentures.


----------



## cielo42 (Jul 11, 2011)

no, if the mother needs it for health reasons or was raped, she should have the right to decide


----------



## Cimerian (Jul 11, 2011)

St.Blues said:


> I don't like the idea of abortion... But a woman should have the right to choose.
> I mind my business.
> On the other side think cost... How many more woman & children would be on the tit?



Are you suggesting we should kill food stamp recipients? Would definitely lower that cost down.


----------



## saved (Jul 12, 2011)

Abortion should be illegal once conception has taken place.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 12, 2011)

Shogun said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



And I correctly pointed out how flawed your FIRST post was with the "the bill includes an exemption for the health of the mother." 
You are so gullible and naive that you do not know that A DOCTOR has to be the one that provides the evidence for that and the spectrum of what exactly defines "the health of the mother" is so wide and vast and lacks SPECIFICS that virtually ANYONE with a checkbook or credit card can slide by with that one. 
Try again next time with something concrete and credible instead of sophomoric generic milk toast nothings which is exactly what your first post was.
Go cry all you want but each and every time you post something as weak as that be prepared to have to defend yourself. I hate having to school defenseless folk like you over and over and over but someone has to make you back up your nonsense and to date, you haven't done it. 
You are not credible as you do not know how to formulate any argument worthy of debate. 
You are a fence sitter with no specifics.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Oct 6, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> You're comment is vague. Are you really equating women and children with dogs?



No, Wry, because the unborn offspring of dogs get more reverence than an unborn child. Killing a dog's unborn offspring could be considered "animal cruelty" while killing an unborn child is simply a woman exercising her rights. 



Wry Catcher said:


> You're really fucked up



No, that honor belongs to you.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 7, 2015)

Not sure why this topic is in this forum, but riddle me this: Should fertility clinics be banned?


----------



## dadsgm (Oct 7, 2015)

Shogun said:


> Across the country, Republicans and Democrats are wrangling over proposed changes to state abortion laws. On Tuesday, the Ohio House of Representatives voted on a measure that has the power to transform the states  and the nations  abortion dialogue. In a landmark move, the House voted 54 to 43 to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat becomes detectable to doctors.
> 
> The measure, known as the Heartbeat Bill, has been touted by Republicans in the state, with the majority of them voting affirmatively for its passage. There has been no shortage of controversy surrounding the proposal, as a heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks (by some accounts, it can be found even earlier). Also, the measure does not include exemptions for rape or incest, but it does include one for the health of the mother. Reuters has more about this intriguing legislative initiative:
> 
> Should Abortion Be Illegal Once a Heartbeat Is Detectable? | Breaking news and opinion on The Blaze


What does it matter?  Why should it be legal or illegal?   It is none of the governments business if a women wants an abortion.  All she should have to do is find a certified practicing doctor who is willing to do the procedure at a certified clinic and or hospital.  It is her choice and the doctors choice, not the government nor the courts.


----------



## manifold (Oct 18, 2015)

dadsgm said:


> What does it matter? Why should it be legal or illegal? It is none of the governments business if a women wants an abortion. All she should have to do is find a certified practicing doctor who is willing to do the procedure at a certified clinic and or hospital. It is her choice and the doctors choice, not the government nor the courts.



Up until what point in the pregnancy though? 

If I take your post literally it seems you believe a woman has the right to kill her unborn fetus right up until birth. Is that what you really believe?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 18, 2015)

Shogun said:


> Across the country, Republicans and Democrats are wrangling over proposed changes to state abortion laws. On Tuesday, the Ohio House of Representatives voted on a measure that has the power to transform the states  and the nations  abortion dialogue. In a landmark move, the House voted 54 to 43 to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat becomes detectable to doctors.
> 
> The measure, known as the Heartbeat Bill, has been touted by Republicans in the state, with the majority of them voting affirmatively for its passage. There has been no shortage of controversy surrounding the proposal, as a heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks (by some accounts, it can be found even earlier). Also, the measure does not include exemptions for rape or incest, but it does include one for the health of the mother. Reuters has more about this intriguing legislative initiative:
> 
> Should Abortion Be Illegal Once a Heartbeat Is Detectable? | Breaking news and opinion on The Blaze





Uh no.

"5 weeks

Your baby still resembles a tadpole more than a human, but is growing fast. The circulatory system is beginning to form, and the tiny heart will start to beat this week.

Your baby is the size of a sesame seed."


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 18, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Across the country, Republicans and Democrats are wrangling over proposed changes to state abortion laws. On Tuesday, the Ohio House of Representatives voted on a measure that has the power to transform the states  and the nations  abortion dialogue. In a landmark move, the House voted 54 to 43 to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat becomes detectable to doctors.
> ...



So which one are you thinking is a "scientific" proof of a lack of life and humanity:  size, or not being an adult?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)




----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


>



Ah, an attempt at logic from someone utterly unqualified to be viewed as human itself.

Allow me to treat this with all the respect it and its source deserves.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Doubling down on being a fucktard?  Trust me, you don't need to work so hard.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



It's no effort at all to show that you didn't know it was an elephant embryo.  Or are you resorting to more empty - and apparently allowable - trolling and flaming because you still don't get it?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Dumbshit, all you showed is that you're a fucktard who wastes everyone's time with digressions and straw men.  Little embryology games are nothing but a smoke screen for you to hide your ignorance and evil behind.

My point stands, and continues to stand:  a human is a human is a human.  Age, size, and location do not change it.  Certainly, "Oh, look, a distraction" changes nothing.

This childishness is exactly why you are addressed with contempt and mockery.  You want something besides "trolling and flaming"?  Deserve it.  For now, you're still a blithering imbecile, as I've always said.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> My point stands, and continues to stand:  a human is a human is a human.



And an elephant isn't.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > My point stands, and continues to stand:  a human is a human is a human.
> ...



Luckily for you, brainless fools are, technically at least.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 19, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



As with death, life begins and ends with neural activity. That's not until much later. 

I'm against abortion, but not against it being legal. Wanna kill your baby that's up to you. And in the case of rape or significant health risk to the mother am ok with it. I just take exception to euphamisms being used in some half-assed attempt to justify it. It's killing the baby, at least be honest about it. Not the ideal situation, but sometimes it's the best one. Shouldn't force a victim of rape to go through 9 months of pregnancy, nor should you write off the mother if staying pregnant's gonna kill her or seriously mess her up.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 20, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



Well, that's a bold assertion, but you do realize that I have no intention of simply taking your word for it, yes?  So I will now be expecting you to produce scientific evidence that the definition of life is "neural activity".


----------



## jillian (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> It's no effort at all to show that you didn't know it was an elephant embryo.  Or are you resorting to more empty - and apparently allowable - trolling and flaming because you still don't get it?



they're too busy repringinting rightwingnut misogynist BS.

wingers need to stay out of other people's business.

i love the pretend moral religious right.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


You once worked in a fertility clinic and you're unfamiliar with the stages of gestation?  Interesting.


----------



## playtime (Oct 20, 2015)

NEVER totally illegal.  The health of the mother should always be top priority.

Otherwise, unless it's viable & can beat on its own outside the womb then restrictions should be in place.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



Hey, wow, another _non sequitur_.

Is there anyone on this planet who doesn't think you're a waste of space?  I'm just curious.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 23, 2015)

playtime said:


> NEVER totally illegal.  The health of the mother should always be top priority.
> 
> Otherwise, unless it's viable & can beat on its own outside the womb then restrictions should be in place.



Considering that leftists define "health of the mother" as "she's stressed and crying because her boyfriend lied about the condom", this is singularly unimpressive.


----------



## playtime (Oct 23, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Considering that leftists define "health of the mother" as "she's stressed and crying because her boyfriend lied about the condom", this is singularly unimpressive.



*^^^ *cue* ^^^*


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 23, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




"4. The uniform determination of death. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards." This definition was approved by the American Medical Association in 1980 and by the American Bar Association in 1981."
Death

If death is the cessation of neural activity, the reverse is also true, that neural activity means there's life and not death or 'un-life' as with a fetus vs human being.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You said "I will now be expecting you to produce scientific evidence that the definition of life is 'neural activity'" and you can't see how my post would follow on from that?  Your lack of comprehension is your own responsibility.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Is there anyone on this planet who doesn't think you're a waste of space?  I'm just curious.



You can't even state that with certainty on a message board, but do get back to us after you've polled everyone on the planet.  I'd like to see your data.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 29, 2015)

playtime said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Considering that leftists define "health of the mother" as "she's stressed and crying because her boyfriend lied about the condom", this is singularly unimpressive.
> ...



Honey, I'm not the one who kneejerks to, "But what about RAAAAPPPEEE?!?!?" every time the question of abortion comes up.  Because we can't be reminded too often that all abortions are a result of rape.  

Is it "drama" to note the existence and ridiculousness of drama?


----------



## playtime (Oct 29, 2015)

*^^^*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 29, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Not sure why this topic is in this forum, but riddle me this: Should fertility clinics be banned?


Of course not.

And neither should abortion.

The problem of abortion needs to be addressed in a manner consistent with privacy rights jurisprudence; not in a manner where the size and authority of government is increased at the expanse of individual liberty, which those who advocate 'banning' abortion seek to do.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 29, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure why this topic is in this forum, but riddle me this: Should fertility clinics be banned?
> ...



I raised the question because with one exception upthread, none of the "pro-life" crowd ever seems to object to the destruction of embryos in fertility clinics (one of them even claims to have worked in a fertility clinic but, given her lack of knowledge about the stages of gestation, the claim is dubious).

Which, to my mind, says it's not really about "life" at all.  They know what would happen if they tried to shut down fertility clinics.


----------



## Geaux4it (Oct 29, 2015)

BLUF: If it has a heartbeat, the abortion becomes murder

-Geaux


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 29, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Correct.

It's isn't about being 'pro-life,' it's about compelling conformity through force of law.


----------



## Geaux4it (Oct 29, 2015)

When allowing a heartbeat to cease as a result of removing life support, does not compare to abortion

There is a difference between letting someone die, vs denying someone live

-Geaux


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 1, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



You leftists would know all about that.  The irony of you people excoriating others for your own game plan never fails to amuse and appall.

On the bright side, though, you and Arian make a cute couple.  So glad you two can entertain each other while the adults talk.


----------



## Arianrhod (Nov 1, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


And Cecelie provides us with another example of a thoughtful content-filled post (the "content" being, true to form, "you leftists," amateurish attempts to set herself up as a poor man's eHarmony and, for the _pièce de résistance_, a reference to "adults") in an attempt to deflect from the fact that she once worked in a fertility clinic and will not deny that she was fine with the clinic's policy of destroying unused embryos.

Because a true adult would defend her position.  A petulant child would leave it hanging so that the only logical conclusion is: Fertility clinics Good (because the right class of women pay for their services) while abortions Bad (because the prevailing mythology is that only poor women have them).

Classism at its finest.


Now, treat us to another content-filled post.


----------



## initforme (Nov 1, 2015)

Perhaps one way to encourage women NOT to have abortions is to give them some help in the form of money if they come in for an abortion.  If they HAVE the child, then they receive some gov't assistance.  Otherwise, even if abortion becomes illegal, those who REALLY want one will find a way to have one.  Pro life means helping out AFTER the child is born as well as BEFORE.


----------



## Arianrhod (Nov 1, 2015)

initforme said:


> Perhaps one way to encourage women NOT to have abortions is to give them some help in the form of money if they come in for an abortion.  If they HAVE the child, then they receive some gov't assistance.  Otherwise, even if abortion becomes illegal, those who REALLY want one will find a way to have one.  Pro life means helping out AFTER the child is born as well as BEFORE.



Agree with your last sentence 100%, but in my observation access to education and contraception is far more effective.  The goal for sane people is to prevent as many unplanned pregnancies as possible.

But with idiots trying to shut down one of the major sources of both education and contraception because these things go against _their_ religion (i.e., attempting to legislate morality), the issue becomes more complicated.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Nov 2, 2015)

Shogun said:


> Across the country, Republicans and Democrats are wrangling over proposed changes to state abortion laws. On Tuesday, the Ohio House of Representatives voted on a measure that has the power to transform the states  and the nations  abortion dialogue. In a landmark move, the House voted 54 to 43 to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat becomes detectable to doctors.
> 
> The measure, known as the Heartbeat Bill, has been touted by Republicans in the state, with the majority of them voting affirmatively for its passage. There has been no shortage of controversy surrounding the proposal, as a heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks (by some accounts, it can be found even earlier). Also, the measure does not include exemptions for rape or incest, but it does include one for the health of the mother. Reuters has more about this intriguing legislative initiative:
> 
> Should Abortion Be Illegal Once a Heartbeat Is Detectable? | Breaking news and opinion on The Blaze



Should murder be illegal?


----------



## Arianrhod (Nov 2, 2015)

Jeremiah said:


> Should murder be illegal?


How do you feel about fertility clinics?


----------



## chikenwing (Nov 2, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it should be illegal at that point.
> ...


Money and what might happen,are not an excuse.


----------



## jillian (Nov 2, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > You're comment is vague. Are you really equating women and children with dogs?
> ...



'why are you trolling back four years to find threads?


----------

