re: Iowa senate passes bill banning abortions once heartbeat is detected

The abortion debate is not one that I consider a deal maker or breaker in politics and is something I've never cared too much about either way, I can see both sides.

I think it should be available in certain circumstances but it SHOULDN'T EVER be covered by the taxpayers, as others shouldn't continuously have to cover for your careless mistakes. The govt shouldn't subsidize Planned Parenthood or any other abortion clinic or procedures, otherwise it sets a precedent that it's condoned and footed by the public. The less involved the government is, the less politicians and their constituents continuously get tangled up with these circular debates.

There should also be some sort of timeframe that serves as a cutoff, i.e. when a heartbeat is present or after 2 months, etc. or it becomes an extremely slippery slope. As science moves forward and we learn more about the advancement of creating human life artificially the lines will only get more and more blurry, solid precedent needs to be set NOW.

I also get hung up on the fact that 99% of abortions are performed on those we most likely don't WANT to be mothers in the long term. What would the current and near-future US look like without previous abortions taking place, as callous as that sounds? We'd have more poverty-stricken mouths to feed, more underpriveliged, more school aged children to educate, more incest-born disabled, a lower overall education standard, more entitlements handed out, and generally poor mothers with numerous children. Adoption is always thrown out in these debates, but the system is already SO beyond overcrowded with a shortage on adoptive parents that we have children living in group homes until they're young adults; at which point they're thrust out on their own with no real life skills, as they didn't receive proper parenting and attention.

While abortion kind of 'excuses' their behavior and gives them an out to continue living their shitty lifestyle, removing abortion completely wouldn't force them to stop their ways either. As a Christian you can still refrain from it and let others commit and live in their own sins, but I realize this is hard for a lot of the devout.

TL;DR - Christians and the government both need to step back and let people make their own choice on the matter, which if detached enough from the two should never effect them firsthand

quote:

---

You call someone a retard, and then proceed to say something that is patently false and makes no sense. Do you consider rocks to be alive? What about this marshmallow peep I'm eating? The plastic all around us?

---

Everything is made up of atoms whether you consider it to be living or not. Electrons behave in very strange and profound ways, adjusting to observation or challenges.

Somehow these atoms formed molecules and then the first single celled organism which you would think to be living, I suppose.

quote:

---

So, if it is OK to kill a collection of cells like a fetus, then it is OK to kill a collection of cells like an adult human or an animal? According to your logic, then yes, it is.

---

Just pointing out that flesh and really all matter come from an unaware place and develop. Stopping something before its development because it could be harmful or impede an already aware development, doesn't seem so wrong to me.

quote:

---

A lot of living organisms have no awareness of their own existence. Several have no brains. So it is OK to just wipe out all of those, then?

---

Do you not eat chicken, beef or pork?

quote:

---

Like how it only has 2 genders? You lecture others on "science", but if it doesn't support your belief system, then you just ignore it. And no, gender isn't something you "feel."

---

Gender and sex are different I don't know why you're having such a hard time with this.

Bottom line is that in Roe an improper use of the abomination called “Substantive Due Process” simply created a result that the Casey court (in plurality only) used for stari decisis.

The law that Roe struck down actually predates the 14th Amendment. So there is not a long traditional history of abortion on demand that is required if you are to use “substantive due process” in order to apply strict scrutiny. Abortion was illegal in some form in 36 states at the time of the adoption of the 14th.

The Casey court only held the core finding of Roe because of precedent. Then applied the “undue burden” test (which was invented by O’Connor specifically for the Casey decision) to bring the case to strict scrutiny.

Horrible practice of law by everyone but Scalia and Thomas.

quote:

---

I was just responding to the poster who talked about posting photos of partial-birth abortions. It would have been irrelevant and an emotional fallacy.

---

Lol, you don't think it happens

quote:

---

CMP’s press release reveals, “According to Prabhakaran, Planned Parenthood abortion doctors can certify compliance with the law by using a feticide like digoxin to kill the fetus before the abortion, or they can simply “document” their “intent” to do a “dismemberment” abortion where the fetus is pulled apart with forceps rather than extracted intact.”

---

Still Happening

quote:

---

“To comply with the partial-birth abortion ban, you basically have to say, ‘I intend to utilize dismemberment techniques for this procedure,’” Dr. Prabhakaran tells activists posing as fetal tissue buyers. “So every time you do a procedure, that’s how you document. So, like, there’s like a checkbox, so it would be before the procedure, you do your evaluation, you write, ‘I intend to utilize dismemberment techniques for this procedure.’”

---

quote:

---

“Planned Parenthood medical directors and abortion doctors feign compliance with the federal partial-birth abortion law on paper,” Mr. Daleiden said in a statement, “knowing full well that ‘what ultimately happens doesn’t matter’ so long as no one is scrutinizing what they actually do to women and children in the operating room.”

---

Sure, it's not happening

quote:

---

How is the right to "Life, Liberty & The Pursuit of Happiness" Unconstitutional?

---

Because that is from the Declaration.

Depends on whether you are a liberal or libertarian and lend a “great weight” to natural law as a poised to “positive” law found in the Constitution.

quote:

---

natural law as a poised to “positive” law found in the Constitution.

---

will you clarify this statement? not the typo, i know you meant as opposed. are you saying there are both positive and natural law aspects to the United States Constitution or are you saying that the Constitution is all "positive-law based"?

quote:

---

If the definition of human life is a heartbeat then can someone explain the difference between a fetus's heartbeat and that of an unreponsive adult on life support? Why is one murder and the other not?

---

One of the hearts is functioning and one is not. Do you really not understand that?

quote:

---

Rex

---

Abort yourself.