• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Atreus21 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Do you support families removing the seriously ill/injured from life support when they can no longer live without it?
 
ivwshane said:
No its not unless that life exists outside of the womb.

If that's your position though, then can we also assume you are for gun control if not the outright banning of guns? Does that mean you are also a staunch supporter of regulations on businesses, especially with regards to the environment? Can we also assume you are now for universal health care? Banning cigarettes? Regulating unhealthy food intake? And all of the other millions of things that kill innocent human beings everyday?
Click to expand...

If that were true, we wouldnt have fetal homicide laws. If fetuses didnt have any rights, these laws wouldnt exist.
 
blackangst1 said:
You mean the part that explains how pro life and pro choice sides debate this argument? Yeah I read that.
Click to expand...

Good, then you'd understand that such laws are no different than hate crime laws since the targets of hate crimes aren't afforded any more rights than any other person.
 
I don't think abortion laws, fetal homicide laws, etc. ought to all rigidly follow the same logic. This is ultimately a human problem, and the challenge is being forced to weigh against each other two lives or potential lives. To hold either absolutely valueless is non-sensical, but it is the only way to provide a consistent solution across all possible scenarios. Too bad. We as humans ought to be able to deal with situations where complex compromises are called for.
 
Is Ohio, Georgia and Alabama cool with same sex couples adopting? What if a lesbian gets pregnant by rape? Should she be forced to have the baby and then forced to give it up because some people believe gay parenting is child abuse. Amazingly, these same people who say "A child needs a mother and a father" support forcing single women to have babies.

Every women considering abortion should have the baby and only give it to a same-sex couple. That would certainly make some of these peoples heads explode.

Speaking of adoption ...in the sense that if an abortion ban in Ohio/Georgia/Alabama "gifted" those states with, say, 5000 to 10000 extra babies per year, wouldn't the number of people (or if you prefer, only good hetero white Christian couples) currently seeking to adopt quickly be satisfied? What do you do two or three years from now? Export? Build more orphanages? Maybe the corporations that currently run private prisons could get a piece of this action.
 
Ichinisan said:
No shit. There's clearly additional concern because the potential mother basically had no choice regarding what happened to them.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why that would matter unless there was a secondary motive of punishing people for engaging in behavior that their religious text doesn't condone.

If you view an embryo as a human being, how it came to exist is of no import wrt whether to terminate it. And the vessel in which it is growing has no say in the matter.
 
interchange said:
I don't think abortion laws, fetal homicide laws, etc. ought to all rigidly follow the same logic. This is ultimately a human problem, and the challenge is being forced to weigh against each other two lives or potential lives. To hold either absolutely valueless is non-sensical, but it is the only way to provide a consistent solution across all possible scenarios. Too bad. We as humans ought to be able to deal with situations where complex compromises are called for.
Click to expand...
Maybe people should just fucking mind their own business.
 
I guess every state that enacted "personhood" type laws, women should drive in the HOV lane. Just say I have a fertilized egg. If you get a ticket take it to court and see if judge rules in your favor that your fertilized egg is a baby.
 
interchange said:
I don't think abortion laws, fetal homicide laws, etc. ought to all rigidly follow the same logic. This is ultimately a human problem, and the challenge is being forced to weigh against each other two lives or potential lives. To hold either absolutely valueless is non-sensical, but it is the only way to provide a consistent solution across all possible scenarios. Too bad. We as humans ought to be able to deal with situations where complex compromises are called for.
Click to expand...
We have a reasonable compromise as it is with current laws and I stretch the term "reasonable" because they still are probably overly strict.
 
Atreus21 said:
Do you think we're better off killing them?



Sure, but are you really claiming the child should be killed because of the difficulty of its existence?
Click to expand...
I doubt it, if you were asked to help a mother in this situation you'd be running full-tilt in the other direction. Your only concern is YOUR opinion being right, zero fucks would come from you actually helping anyone out, another "smoke and wind" pro-lifer.
 
hal2kilo said:
Between the idiot browser (explorer 11 based) with a program that keeps the session in virtual memory that I'm forced to use at work, and well, this forum software,. nothing surprises. me.
Click to expand...

Sure, blame the deprecated software instead of yourself.
 
Last edited:
Another ripple effect of laws like these is that they force away progressive mindsets and encourage younger voters from leaving the state. They move to more progressive areas that already have high population concentrations and leave a concentrated core of red hat republicans forever locking in Alabama's electoral college and senate votes. That's the real risk to the country right now, states like Alabama, Georgia and Ohio (and so on) making plays like that make progress on the electoral map very difficult.
 
vi edit said:
That's the real risk to the country right now, states like Alabama, Georgia and Ohio (and so on) making plays like that make progress on the electoral map very difficult.
Click to expand...

It is a bit of a problem with our democracy in general. As population gets denser in urban areas it leaves the increasingly sparse population of rural areas with an unreasonably large amount of political power, particularly in state politics, which ultimately has a strong effect on national politics.
Eventually we are going to have to address this problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top