Those heartbeat laws (abortion).... yeah this is what happens.

[Vic]

IMHO all these 5-6 week laws were written expressly to get to a SCOTUS attempt to overturn Roe vs Wade. With Kavanuts now a member they figure they might have a shot.

The question is how is SCOTUS going to overturn Roe v Wade without ignoring the due process and equal protection clauses in the 14a?

 

[JSt0rm]

The question is how is SCOTUS going to overturn Roe v Wade without ignoring the due process and equal protection clauses in the 14a?

First step is to change election maps so you get 75% of the congressional seats with 52% of the vote... Next step is block a president from putting up a justice... third step is put up 2 or more extremes... 4th step profit?

 

[Jaskalas]

The question is how is SCOTUS going to overturn Roe v Wade without ignoring the due process and equal protection clauses in the 14a?

How? You just need people who care more about the life of the child, and weigh that factor MORE than the rights of the mother.
Similar reasoning behind child support, no? We protect the child there over the liberties of the parent.

 

[Vic]

How? You just need people who care more about the life of the child, and weigh that factor MORE than the rights of the mother.
Similar reasoning behind child support, no? We protect the child there over the liberties of the parent.

No, because child support is 1) a civil matter, not criminal, and 2) can be paid by either the mother or father (men pay it more often due to cultural reasons, not legal reasons).

I believe you misunderstood my earlier post though, which is that the R v W decision is based upon the due process and equal protection clauses in the 14a, which can only be interpreted to mean that women have the same rights under the law as men do. In order for the state to outlaw abortion, it must de facto seize the woman's body from her control without due process (ie pre-emptively) and for reasons that can never apply to men. No amount of 'caring for children' can change that. We would just be subjugating and enslaving women, holding them unequal under the law, but this time under the reasoning that women must be kept subject to the male's offspring, rather than just to the male himself.

 

[UglyCasanova]

There’s two abortion/women’s rights threads and admittedly I haven’t read all the way through either but here’s my opinion that I posted in the other one:

I respect the pro life movements sincerity about their position and their philosophy of seeing a fertilized egg as a human. I wholeheartedly disagree with them though and despise trying to use the law and government to force their way into a woman’s life. It should be between a doctor and her and that’s it. Women’s rights are being trampled by an intrusive government. The problem is this will never be stopped. They will never stop.​

 

[Vic]

There’s two abortion/women’s rights threads and admittedly I haven’t read all the way through either but here’s my opinion that I posted in the other one:

I respect the pro life movements sincerity about their position and their philosophy of seeing a fertilized egg as a human. I wholeheartedly disagree with them though and despise trying to use the law and government to force their way into a woman’s life. It should be between a doctor and her and that’s it. Women’s rights are being trampled by an intrusive government. The problem is this will never be stopped. They will never stop.​

I agree with you here, except for the belief that the 'pro-lifers' are sincere in their motives.
They might believe that they are (I won't disagree with that), but behind this entire debate is female equality (wrt self-ownership/body sovereignty) vs the male need to reproduce. The purported concern for the children here represents placing the latter above the former. And the problem with that is that self-ownership is an inherent right and reproduction is not.

 

[Commodus]

There’s two abortion/women’s rights threads and admittedly I haven’t read all the way through either but here’s my opinion that I posted in the other one:

I respect the pro life movements sincerity about their position and their philosophy of seeing a fertilized egg as a human. I wholeheartedly disagree with them though and despise trying to use the law and government to force their way into a woman’s life. It should be between a doctor and her and that’s it. Women’s rights are being trampled by an intrusive government. The problem is this will never be stopped. They will never stop.​

That's a good viewpoint, although there is a way to effectively stop that "intrusive government:" vote exclusively Democrat until the Republicans give up their anti-choice platform. Sound good?

 

[UglyCasanova]

If I were a single issue voter that would be the answer, but I disagree with a Democrat’s on other issues. There’s not a party out there that fully represents me. I will say women’s rights and pro choice and keeping the government out of a woman’s medical decisions is very important to me and will weigh heavily on my decision on who to vote for.

And Vic I disagree, they are sincere. They view human life as beginning at conception and see abortion and killing an innocent human life. We may disagree with their viewpoints and more importantly the policies they want to implement but they are certainly being honest and sincere.

 

[balloonshark]

This is about forcing someone else's beliefs on other people. It's 2019 and this shit shouldn't be happening. Next they will be forcing women to wear dresses.

As far as I'm concerned all pro-life churches should be taxed and that money should go to the mother and child from prenatal care to college. If they really are concerned about the baby then they should be responsible. Put your money where you mouth is.

 

[UglyCasanova]

This is about forcing someone else's beliefs on other people.

Absolutely. The government being he mechanism to do so.

 

[Vic]

And Vic I disagree, they are sincere. They view human life as beginning at conception and see abortion and killing an innocent human life. We may disagree with their viewpoints and more importantly the policies they want to implement but they are certainly being honest and sincere.

Well, like I said, they may believe they are sincere but for the fact that, with the exception of the Catholic church, the most vocal anti-abortion churches are also the least charitable. I'm referring to the hard-right 'prosperity Christianity' churches with their anti-Christian views like poverty is God's punishment, and good old Christian charity is an evil that gets in the way of their ability to shame poor parents for being unable to afford to properly care for their children.
I know there are still churches out there doing charitable work, but those are becoming fewer and fewer, as the Pat Robertsons, Robert Jeffress', and Joel Osteens take over. And it's really hard for me to see forcing a woman to bear a child just so they xqn shame the woman for being too poor to properly raise the child as being a genuine and sincere pro-life belief.

 

[Atreus21]

There’s two abortion/women’s rights threads and admittedly I haven’t read all the way through either but here’s my opinion that I posted in the other one:

I respect the pro life movements sincerity about their position and their philosophy of seeing a fertilized egg as a human. I wholeheartedly disagree with them though and despise trying to use the law and government to force their way into a woman’s life. It should be between a doctor and her and that’s it. Women’s rights are being trampled by an intrusive government. The problem is this will never be stopped. They will never stop.​

Is this a human being? It's a child born prematurely at 25 weeks.

 

[Vic]

See? It's just hard to find genuineness when they rush in to confuse a discussion about early-term abortion with an example of a fetus at 25 weeks.

 

[Atreus21]

See? It's just hard to find genuineness when they rush in to confuse a discussion about early-term abortion with an example of a fetus at 25 weeks.

It's also hard to find genuineness when abortion proponents pretend that abortion doesn't involve tearing a child of that development into individual pieces and re-assembling them on a table. Should that be permissible?

 

[Vic]

It's also hard to find genuineness when abortion proponents pretend that abortion doesn't involve tearing a child of that development into individual pieces and re-assembling them on a table. Should that be permissible?

Horrible as that sounds, why does it matter when you were never going to assist in bearing and raising the child anyway? You'll do everything to force a woman to bear a child but nothing to help her raise the child. Seems to me that passively killing a child post-birth is still killing a child.

 

[Atreus21]

Horrible as that sounds, why does it matter when you were never going to assist in bearing and raising the child anyway? You'll do everything to force a woman to bear a child but nothing to help her raise the child. Seems to me that passively killing a child post-birth is still killing a child.

You're suggesting that the child is better off torn apart than facing difficulties in life?

Scratch that. Let's go with: We give the woman every possible support and love and she still wants to abort a healthy and developed unborn child. Should that be permitted?

 

[Vic]

You're suggesting that the child is better off torn apart than facing difficulties in life?

Scratch that. Let's go with: We give the woman every possible support and love and she still wants to abort a healthy and developed unborn child. Should that be permitted?

I didn't say the child is better off, I said there is no difference when your 'love and support' ends at the moment of birth.

 

[Atreus21]

I didn't say the child is better off, I said there is no difference when your 'love and support' ends at the moment of birth.

Suppose it doesn't. Suppose the mother has all the support she requires, suppose even that I personally am directly providing it, and she still wants to abort a healthy child of 25 weeks. Should that be permitted?

 

[Meghan54]

Suppose it doesn't. Suppose the mother has all the support she requires, suppose even that I personally am directly providing it, and she still wants to abort a healthy child of 25 weeks. Should that be permitted?

Most fetuses born at 25 weeks don't survive without a fairly costly and lengthy stay in Neonate ICU, which I worked in for 6 months. Damned depressing place with infant after infant dying. Lungs are barely able to function...prior to 24 weeks gestational age, the fetus's lungs don't produce surfactant and thereby aren't able to clear fluids from the alveolar sacs in the lungs, essentially drowning the fetus.

There are success stories...but they are not the norm, sorry.

And your scenario...misguided at best. Are you willing to be the day care center for the mother as she has to work to obtain anything in life, esp. any sort of govt. assistance for the now medically fragile and needy infant?

 

[abj13]

Is this a human being? It's a child born prematurely at 25 weeks.

Nice deceptive post, as expected. That isn't an image at 25 weeks, that's an image of a former 25 week preemie who was 4 months postnatal age (approximately corrected to 40 weeks gestational age, equivalent to a full term delivery).

People act like its all hunky dory for any birth at 24-28 weeks. There is a significant risk of morbidity and mortality on top of having a breathing tube stuck down your throat for weeks, being poked and prodded for blood samples, with additional risks of chronic lung disease, retinopathy of prematurity, sepsis, and risk of significant neurodevelopmental sequalae.

And why are you posting an image in this thread when the OP was about a heartbeat abortion bill? Why aren't you posting an image of the conceptus when the heart begins to beat?

 

[Vic]

Suppose it doesn't. Suppose the mother has all the support she requires, suppose even that I personally am directly providing it, and she still wants to abort a healthy child of 25 weeks. Should that be permitted?

Should she choose to do so, I will not cast the first stone. Or any stone for that matter.

 

[ondma]

No, because child support is 1) a civil matter, not criminal, and 2) can be paid by either the mother or father (men pay it more often due to cultural reasons, not legal reasons).

I believe you misunderstood my earlier post though, which is that the R v W decision is based upon the due process and equal protection clauses in the 14a, which can only be interpreted to mean that women have the same rights under the law as men do. In order for the state to outlaw abortion, it must de facto seize the woman's body from her control without due process (ie pre-emptively) and for reasons that can never apply to men. No amount of 'caring for children' can change that. We would just be subjugating and enslaving women, holding them unequal under the law, but this time under the reasoning that women must be kept subject to the male's offspring, rather than just to the male himself.

I believe that abortion should be legal, simply because it is the "least bad" of the alternatives when a woman is pregnant and does not wish to have the child. (Why she simply did not use birth control if she does not want to become pregnant is beyond me, but obviously that happens often). And of course rape, incest, or unforeseen health consequences are a totally different situation. However, I simply dont accept the "women must have equal rights, so they have a right to abortion argument." That is a gross oversimplification, and a way of making an unfortunate (and preventable) choice sound like something noble. As for the 14th amendment, nobody really knows how the writers would have viewed any specific situation. And since women can get pregnant and bear children, and men cant, the law can never be "equal". The best we can do is have it interpreted by the Supreme Court. Roe v Wade seems like a reasonable compromise and I would not like to see it overturned.

 

[ivwshane]

It's also hard to find genuineness when abortion proponents pretend that abortion doesn't involve tearing a child of that development into individual pieces and re-assembling them on a table. Should that be permissible?

Call it what ever you want, its still none of your damn business.

 

[Atreus21]

Most fetuses born at 25 weeks don't survive without a fairly costly and lengthy stay in Neonate ICU, which I worked in for 6 months. Damned depressing place with infant after infant dying. Lungs are barely able to function...prior to 24 weeks gestational age, the fetus's lungs don't produce surfactant and thereby aren't able to clear fluids from the alveolar sacs in the lungs, essentially drowning the fetus.

There are success stories...but they are not the norm, sorry.

Do you think we're better off killing them?

And your scenario...misguided at best. Are you willing to be the day care center for the mother as she has to work to obtain anything in life, esp. any sort of govt. assistance for the now medically fragile and needy infant?

Sure, but are you really claiming the child should be killed because of the difficulty of its existence?

 

[Atreus21]

Should she choose to do so, I will not cast the first stone. Or any stone for that matter.

Could you clarify what you mean by that?