It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Heart Beat Bill Vetoed

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
CNN


Ohio Gov. John Kasich vetoed a measure that would have outlawed abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected while approving a law that outlaws abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.



"Similar legislation enacted in two other states has twice been declared unconstitutional by federal judges, and the Supreme Court declined to review those decisions," he said in a statement.



The vetoed proposal, commonly referred to as the "heartbeat bill," would have been the nation's strictest time-based legislation, banning abortions around six weeks.



Kasich is looking more and more like he would have been a reasonable candidate.

However,


"The 20-week ban will force women to travel long distances and cross state lines in order to access safe, legal abortion -- a barrier that many women simply cannot afford. This is just another shameful attempt by John Kasich to make abortion illegal."


I feel that 20 weeks is reasonable to me, for completely elective abortion. However, the article doesn't state exceptions, if any.

Certain extreme brain conditions do not show up in ultrasounds or tests until 21 or 22 or 23 weeks.


edit on 13-12-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



edit: It appears that what passed is senate bill 127. It does not require proof if the fetus is viable or not, the abortion will not be allowed even if it is clear the fetus is not viable.
However, if the mother's health is at risk, the abortion will still be allowed past 20 weeks.
edit on 13-12-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

23 weeks is closer to the period of time the fetus starts to have the necessary neuroanatomical features for consciousness. So placing the limit there makes more sense to me.

Putting it at the heartbeat is obviously an appeal to emotion. Nothing more. Which is ultimately just a stepping stone to their "spark of life" point placed at conception nonsense.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Wow, an actual reasonable thread.
The bill sounds reasonable I guess if a compromise needs to be made on this issue.

I don't think there should be any restrictions on when a woman can choose to have an abortion. There are more than enough parents who can't raise their kids properly, we don't need more unwanted children.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   
20 weeks is more than enough time for anyone to decide they want an abortion, and it's increasingly more dangerous the further you go past that. but... it really isn't enough time to detect some serious defects in the fetus, nor do I believe it will allow one if the fetus proves that it will never be viable outside the womb. I just feel that if the fetus is proven to be doomed, then it is cruel to the mother carrying it to make her continue the pregnancy to term regardless, and quite possibly to the fetus under some circumstances.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Why are women allowed to be serial killers if they chose? Because a procedure is available?

So a woman is allowed to end a life, LEGALLY no less, and if they choose, a man has to endure 18 years+ of servitude if she decides to see it through?

That's a lot of power to decide the fate of involved individuals.

"Women are so oppressed and powerless.... pay, status, body rights..."

Be careful who you sleep with and ALWAYS use protection... to the point of having a vasectomy depending on your age and situation.

edit on E31America/ChicagoTue, 13 Dec 2016 20:27:06 -060012pmTuesdayth08pm by EternalShadow because: a correction



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

This just makes sense.

The "heartbeat" bill just seemed a little over-reaching to me. As Lucid states in this thread, 23 weeks is a better option. So a win for reasonable people and we keep going...



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalShadow

It's not serial killing.

It's choosing to be an adult and make an adult decision.

Nature does that as well, but you probably don't want to hear that either.

Try foster parenting for 20 years or so... it will solidify your views on abortion.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalShadow

Why are women allowed to be serial killers if they chose?



So a woman is allowed to end a life, LEGALLY no less

What you're saying is in complete conflict.

A serial killer is someone who has committed multiple murders. Murder is the unlawful act of taking human life. Abortions being legal are therefore not murder and so a discussion of serial killing is utterly erroneous.
edit on 13-12-2016 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: GreyScale
a reply to: EternalShadow

It's not serial killing.

It's choosing to be an adult and make an adult decision.

Nature does that as well, but you probably don't want to hear that either.

Try foster parenting for 20 years or so... it will solidify your views on abortion.

That adult decision should be made before the two parties get in the sack together!! Hello!!??? How many children have been executed because of the "heat of passion" clause and a procedure to sweep it under the rug should it go to custard???

You're excuses are bs.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: EternalShadow

Why are women allowed to be serial killers if they chose?



So a woman is allowed to end a life, LEGALLY no less

What you're saying is in complete conflict.

A serial killer is someone who has committed multiple murders. Murder is the unlawful act of taking human life. Abortions being legal are therefore not murder and so a discussion of serial killing is utterly erroneous.


Whatever helps you sleep at night....wow...



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: GreyScale
a reply to: EternalShadow

That adult decision should be made before the two parties get in the sack together!! Hello!!??? How many children have been executed because of the "heat of passion" clause and a procedure to sweep it under the rug should it go to custard???

You're excuses are bs.


I had 2 of my 5 children on birth control. The last one after my wife had her tubes tied. The 6th we had aborted.

Care to keep going on this?



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: GreyScale

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: GreyScale
a reply to: EternalShadow

That adult decision should be made before the two parties get in the sack together!! Hello!!??? How many children have been executed because of the "heat of passion" clause and a procedure to sweep it under the rug should it go to custard???

You're excuses are bs.


I had 2 of my 5 children on birth control. The last one after my wife had her tubes tied. The 6th we had aborted.

Care to keep going on this?

Care to keep f#ing to prove your point? Get real...



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalShadow

Whatever helps you sleep at night....wow...

Giving an explanation on how what you're saying is in error in a discussion thread. I know, my actions are just so disgusting.

You can in turn explain how i'm wrong, you know. Explain how a legal abortion is illegal and therefore should constitute as murder. It won't have any bearing on my sleep but i'd like to see it.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: EternalShadow

Whatever helps you sleep at night....wow...

Giving an explanation on how what you're saying is in error in a discussion thread. I know, my actions are just so disgusting.

You can in turn explain how i'm wrong, you know. Explain how a legal abortion is illegal and therefore should constitute as murder. It won't have any bearing on my sleep but i'd like to see it.


It's called a moral compass...the ability to see wrong even when it's made right for you. Example: Any DUI manslaughter or murder case. Alcohol is provided.... you choose to drive and kill someone, but alcohol is legal....yeah good try.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalShadow

No. It's a matter of you throwing out legal jargon with zero understanding of what the legal terms mean.

You're reinventing the language in order to spew out vitriol.

Someone having a legal abortion is not committing murder under the eyes of the Law. Hence why they are not getting convicted of being serial killers.

You're talking about non-reality.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalShadow




Care to keep f#ing to prove your point? Get real...


I don't even know what you are talking about at this point.

We were being responsible because we ended up with too many children and didn't need any more.

For the record, people do keep having sex. Maybe not you, which would explain your attitude.

I'm going to drop talking to you because there is nothing really to gain from it.

Have a good night!!!



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:56 PM
link   
You're using your sex life experiences to justify your position on this topic. I simply asked, considering your track record, whether or not, ongoing said sex life experiences are beneficial if they are not planned? There's always an OUT, right? So why bother...



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalShadow

do you realize that there are some spouses out there who, if their mate decided that hey, we have enough kids, I really don't want anymore, so we aren't gonna do the act anymore, well, their mate would rather leave and find someone else to play with than live without sex?? if the couple has three, four, or five or more kids that they are taking care of together, is your self-rightous attitude about abortion worth a divorce and three, four, five or more kids being added to the welfare roles for the taxpayer to pay for?
no birth control method is 100% effective, so there is always a chance of a child being conceived. and some people value the intimacy in their marriage far more than you seem to...



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: EternalShadow

No. It's a matter of you throwing out legal jargon with zero understanding of what the legal terms mean.

You're reinventing the language in order to spew out vitriol.

Someone having a legal abortion is not committing murder under the eyes of the Law. Hence why they are not getting convicted of being serial killers.

You're talking about non-reality.


Legal jargon.... LOL. Ok....legalized and FUNDED serial killing.......maybe.... kinda......geez...



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: EternalShadow

do you realize that there are some spouses out there who, if their mate decided that hey, we have enough kids, I really don't want anymore, so we aren't gonna do the act anymore, well, their mate would rather leave and find someone else to play with than live without sex?? if the couple has three, four, or five or more kids that they are taking care of together, is your self-rightous attitude about abortion worth a divorce and three, four, five or more kids being added to the welfare roles for the taxpayer to pay for?
no birth control method is 100% effective, so there is always a chance of a child being conceived. and some people value the intimacy in their marriage far more than you seem to...



Awesome....get this fellas, women now have the right to dictate family density! Lol..




top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join