House passes 20 week abortion ban.

a reply to: intrepid

most of the states do have laws prohibiting abortion at the point of viability if not a little earlier, like the 20 week mark..
you can do that, but you have to also respect the life and health of the mother!! this law falls short on that.

originally posted by: windword
What do you think Roe V Wade says about women having abortions anytime?

And @ dawnstar

It limits abortion to the first 2 trimesters. The time frame of viability is uncertain. 24, 23 weeks, or sooner. This puts a definite time frame on it. Should work for both camps if they are thinking. Abortion isn't going anywhere. Best to make the best of a bad situation imo.

Cripes. I can't believe I'm actually arguing abortions side of this issue but emotional people are being too...emotional.

a reply to: intrepid


Roe V Wade argues both sides of the issue, you we don't have to. I'd like to know what part of Roe V Wade is broken, that you think there's an under represented side?

a reply to: intrepid

but regardless of the trimester, if it is endangering the health of the mother, it has to be allowed if it's the only way to eliminate the danger safely.
and since any pregnancy carries some risk to the mother, if it's proven that the fetus will be non-viable after birth, or that it won't make it to that point, if abortion is a safe alternative, it should be allowed...

I can't believe that I have to argue that point!!!
or that hospitals in our country can actually avoid abortion in such situations for that matter.

it goes beyond roe v wade to the idea that we can place a fetus' rights above the rights of the women who is carrying it, to the point where we are willing to sacrifice the women's health and live if there is even a remote chance that the fetus might survive. and by remote, I mean, well god might intervene!!!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: intrepid


Roe V Wade argues both sides of the issue, you we don't have to. I'd like to know what part of Roe V Wade is broken...

I've already stated that this defines it more. The time frame difference is small. If it's any consolation the prolife "side" still isn't happy either. That happens in compromise.

...that you think there's an under represented side?

Sides. That's your problem. Always sides and damn it I won't let them win. That's both "sides" btw. Nothing constructive.

a reply to: intrepid


What compromise? Pre-viability governmental interference? A woman's health and safety?

The time frame difference isn't small, it's the difference between viability and superstition, between a woman's civil rights, her health and safety and someone's pseudo science about supposed fetal pain.

a reply to: windword

Thank you for making my point on the emotion premise of that side and the lack of logic and compromise. You may not see it but the reader does.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I'm totally fine with this if they added two more points.

1, a birth defect rider.
For obvious reasons.

2, ease adoption regulations.
It's stupid that I can adopt a foreign kid easier than an American kid.

This for sure.

People are strictly anti-abortion, but they hate the welfare state and refuse to pay for other's 'mistakes.' In this case, that mistake is an innocent child. Someone who is a very low economic bracket probably does not have the money to raise that child for the 18+ years. We're looking at a child who will be disadvantaged in many areas, in poor health from a garbage cheap processed diet, probably in the worst of the worst public schools, and with a life outlook that's rarely better than the parent/s raising them. They may also drift into a gang and get sucked into a criminal life.

Abortion is not for me, but I question the anger and upset over welfare programs for the poor, when the same people would force women who are destitute, hooked on drugs, in abusive relationships, etc, to maintain a pregnancy to the end when that very thing is likely to end with yet another poor citizen hooked into the welfare system as that child grows up.

The current system is set up to block many wonderful people from adopting an unwanted child, but that same system is all for a woman hooked on meth and heroine to pop out as many drug-addicted infants as she wants to preserve her right to have those children. These same kids are often thrown away into a horrible and abusive foster care system which just feeds into the terrible cycle. People don't want these throw-away kids who often have emotional and mental issues.

The system is rotten to the core, but there is almost zero hope in hell of anyone coming together on such issues to make it workable.

a reply to: dawnstar

Good for them! Hopefully the Senate does what's right and finagles it into a simple majority, signing it as well, moving it on to a POTUS who will certainly appreciate the bill and get it done. It's time for this nonsense to come to an end once and for all.

a reply to: intrepid


Look, this Bill advocates for ignoring the viability requirement of Roe V Wade, for some supposed unscientific claim that a 20 week old fetus will feel the pain of an abortion, so all abortions past 20 weeks should be banned, even though the life and quality of life of the woman, and her family, may be at risk. That's an unacceptable compromise.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

It's time for this nonsense to come to an end once and for all.

What nonsense is that?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

what nonsense is that??
the nonsense that pregnant women have just as much right to have their health and life protected as anyone else?? or that they shouldn't be expected to risk that life, that health for the slim chance, if any chance that a severely deformed baby will be able to survive against all hope??

I see it is the same old hypocrisy going on again from the ATS members on the right. The lie about caring about an unborn child while screaming about having to pay taxes that may help a needy child.



Here is a list of some more hypercritical lies they love to tell us.


It's at the point, where you tell yourself why bother, they are going to preach one thing while doing the complete opposite.

a reply to: dawnstar
Four months sounds reasonable to me! This is a great start, and no woman's life is in any increased risk of danger beyond that which would not be an exemption. I think they may have read over some of my draft abortion proposition I did about a year ago. Now if they can just mandate the fathers consent (with exemptions of course), we would be on the right track!

Can you say Psycho?

When you give a nutcase an inch, they'll take a mile.


Abortion Supported Say It's Ok to Murder Babies Up to 3 Years Old.

birhofanewearth.blogspot.com/2013/07/abortion-supporters-say-its-ok-to.html

www.telegraph.co.uk...

originally posted by: ADSE255
Can you say Psycho?

When you give a nutcase an inch, they'll take a mile.


Abortion Supported Say It's Ok to Murder Babies Up to 3 Years Old.

birhofanewearth.blogspot.com/2013/07/abortion-supporters-say-its-ok-to.html

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Hysterical headline does not reflect reality of story.

That seems to be an anti-abortion group saying that if you can abort fetuses then you should morally and ethically also be able to murder infants.

It is most assuredly not abortion supporters saying they should kill babies too.


I don't think anybody on either side of the debate thinks that killing infants should be allowed.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

so, let see, the women develops complications, the doctors determine that those complications will prevent the baby from surviving, but they can't do nothing, not till the heartbeat stops.
the complications lead to more complications, and infection develops, but still there is a heartbeat, so they can't do anything to remove the source of the infection because the women isn't at risk of imminent death. they can only treat her with antibiotics and hope.
the women might be withering in pain, doesn't matter, till the heartbeat stops, or the condition gets to the point where it a direct threat to her life, well, they can't do anything but treat the symptoms.
by then it might be too late, she may die, or her uterus might be so severely damaged that it has to be removed, other organs might be damaged where where will need lifelong medical treatment just to stay alive. what could have been a short stay in the hospital could have turned into weeks or months of hospitalization...

all because the lawmakers cared so little about the mother's health and well being that they neglected to include the word "health" in their law!!!

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Four months sounds reasonable to me!

Why? Why is a 4 month timeline more reasonable than the viability time line, mandated by Roe V Wade?

a reply to: Painterz

That was sorta my point.

Although it won't be so hilarious if it happens. Let's see...

The world has gone bats attacking stupid issues like tearing down statues. Check
People always say it will never happen until it does. Check
The 1% have been trying to kill the 99% since, forever. Check
What's far fetched to one, isn't to another. Check
Hitler. Check

I see what you obviously aren't.

a reply to: ShawnTBear

The Hypocrasy is far more extensive than we think it is.