Iowa set to ban abortions after six weeks

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I don't really care.

It's none of their damn business.

It's none of your business if I wanna kill my dog and eat it either, but the society I live in has decided it is. So I can either just go without dogmeat, or I can go find myself a society that's more welcoming to the practice.

I support LIVING CHILDREN.

You are talking about a dog that is already living.

Do you support DACA? Those are LIVING CHILDREN.

Yes the DACA children have a right to life. The right to citizenship is a different argument.
What's your point?

NO -- it is NOT a different argument.

You are either Pro LIVING CHILDREN or you're not.

And DACA is not about citizenship.

Totally different, obviously. Ending life in one case and not in the other. It's a stupid comparison.
DACA kids can have a life in Mexico or wherever they were brought from.

Not different.

You either support the welfare of LIVING CHILDREN.

Or you don't.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Bone75

A fetus is a group of cells with potential to become a LIVING human.

It is NOT a living human.

I can attest to that because I pullled my 4th month spontaneous aborted fetus out of the toilet.

It was NOT a LIVING CHILD.

I'm sorry your child died.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Anti-abortions bills should be unconstitutional.

They are. It's just that legislators need circuit court judges to remind them of what the Supreme Court already said. This is just another waste of time and tax payer money.

Good job RWNJ politicians!

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I don't really care.

It's none of their damn business.

It's none of your business if I wanna kill my dog and eat it either, but the society I live in has decided it is. So I can either just go without dogmeat, or I can go find myself a society that's more welcoming to the practice.

I support LIVING CHILDREN.

You are talking about a dog that is already living.

Do you support DACA? Those are LIVING CHILDREN.

Yes the DACA children have a right to life. The right to citizenship is a different argument.
What's your point?

NO -- it is NOT a different argument.

You are either Pro LIVING CHILDREN or you're not.

And DACA is not about citizenship.

Totally different, obviously. Ending life in one case and not in the other. It's a stupid comparison.
DACA kids can have a life in Mexico or wherever they were brought from.

Not different.

You either support the welfare of LIVING CHILDREN.

Or you don't.

Welfare and life are not the same thing, obviously.
Like I said, DACA children can live a good standard of living in Mexico or wherever they came from. If those places are truly untenable then they can seek asylum. No one is suggesting we kill them.

a reply to: UKTruth

No one is suggesting we kill them.

Just abandon them. Aren't you the bastion of moral platitudes!

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Carcharadon

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Bluntone22

There are exceptions in the bill for rape, incest and the mothers health.

To me, those exceptions undermine the moral precedent of this entire bill. Are the products of rape and incest less than human?

You want women to have kids that were a result of the worst experience in their lives? Violated in ways a man can't imagine? Adding to the trauma that they had?

What do you mean "in ways a man can't imagine"? Men can't be raped? Or is rape somehow worse for a woman than a man?

Explain your idiotic statement please.

The frequency of men getting raped outside of prison is quite rare. Women are raped at a vastly higher rate daily. So unless you've experienced this type of violation keep you "idiotic" statements to yourself.

Give it a rest. About half of one percent of pregnancies are due to rape.

Then why are you guys busting a nut over it then? The lack of logic with you is astounding. Logic pretzels anyone?

I thought you said this wasn't the venue for insults (after boldly claiming that as a man I couldn't possibly know what it's like to be raped)?

Cop out much?

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: dug88

Just like there's no drug dealers in countries with the death penalty for that right?

I said you'd be hard pressed.

Also drug dealers don't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and go through 8 years of college to deal drugs.

Well American doctors do, but that's beside the point.

You'd be surprised who some drug dealers are....but i'm gonna agree with your last point there and be done with this whole ridiculous thread.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I don't really care.

It's none of their damn business.

It's none of your business if I wanna kill my dog and eat it either, but the society I live in has decided it is. So I can either just go without dogmeat, or I can go find myself a society that's more welcoming to the practice.

I support LIVING CHILDREN.

You are talking about a dog that is already living.

Do you support DACA? Those are LIVING CHILDREN.

Yes the DACA children have a right to life. The right to citizenship is a different argument.
What's your point?

NO -- it is NOT a different argument.

You are either Pro LIVING CHILDREN or you're not.

And DACA is not about citizenship.

Totally different, obviously. Ending life in one case and not in the other. It's a stupid comparison.
DACA kids can have a life in Mexico or wherever they were brought from.

Not different.

You either support the welfare of LIVING CHILDREN.

Or you don't.

Welfare and life are not the same thing, obviously.
Like I said, DACA children can live a good standard of living in Mexico or wherever they came from. If those places are truly untenable then they can seek asylum. No one is suggesting we kill them.

Your post says a lot about YOU.

And your value of how important a child is after its birth.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: UKTruth

No one is suggesting we kill them.

Just abandon them. Aren't you the bastion of moral platitudes!

Exactly!

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Bone75

A fetus is a group of cells with potential to become a LIVING human.

It is NOT a living human.

I can attest to that because I pullled my 4th month spontaneous aborted fetus out of the toilet.

It was NOT a LIVING CHILD.

I'm sorry your child died.

It was NOT a child.

It was a clump of cells with potential to become a human.

No different then personal choice stop a clump of cells from progressing further.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Bone75

A fetus is a group of cells with potential to become a LIVING human.

It is NOT a living human.

I can attest to that because I pullled my 4th month spontaneous aborted fetus out of the toilet.

It was NOT a LIVING CHILD.

I'm sorry your child died.

It was NOT a child.

It was a clump of cells with potential to become a human.

No different then personal choice stop a clump of cells from progressing further.

Most "clumps of cells" don't have a heartbeat.

There's a helluva difference between pulling a tumor out of one's body than a fetus with a heartbeat.

originally posted by: MysticPearl

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Bone75

A fetus is a group of cells with potential to become a LIVING human.

It is NOT a living human.

I can attest to that because I pullled my 4th month spontaneous aborted fetus out of the toilet.

It was NOT a LIVING CHILD.

I'm sorry your child died.

It was NOT a child.

It was a clump of cells with potential to become a human.

No different then personal choice stop a clump of cells from progressing further.

Most "clumps of cells" don't have a heartbeat.
does

There's a helluva difference between pulling a tumor out of one's body than a fetus with a heartbeat.

Not to me there isn't.

Potential means potential - - - it does not mean LIVING HUMAN.

a reply to: MysticPearl

the tumor is bigger than the 6 week fetus???

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Bone75

so was I and I would say that it's a whole different matter. the psychological effects entirely different.

The psychological effects are different from person to person, regardless of age or gender. Maybe one day we can trade horror stories and talk about how we managed to carry on with our lives, but for now I'm simply trying to express my problem with this bill.

but if you are against the exemptions in this law, then you must be all for making that young child of 9, 10, 11, 12, or whatever age victim of such an abuse continue with the pregnancy...

I have 3 daughters and I'm not totally devoid of compassion as you'd like to believe.

As I've already stated, I think the only exception should be self defense. Prepubescent children getting pregnant is extremely rare, prepubescent children getting pregnant after being raped is almost unheard of, but it does happen, and such cases would likely fall under that exception.

Tell me this, do you think a pregnant 9 year old should be forced to have an abortion?

a reply to: Annee

If your line is drawn at a "living human being", then you'd support abortion at 37 weeks.

A "living human being" might even be classified as a human which can survive without the help or assistance of others. In that case we can just murder most infants and clean out a number of assisted living and old folks homes.

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: Annee

If your line is drawn at a "living human being", then you'd support abortion at 37 weeks.

A "living human being" might even be classified as a human which can survive without the help or assistance of others. In that case we can just murder most infants and clean out a number of assisted living and old folks homes.

First off - - at least I'm speaking from real 1st hand experience.

I've been there. First pregnancy I had no choice over, the other 3 were by choice. Decisions were made.

First pregnancy was a 4th month spontaneous abortion.

Then I had 2 kids.

4th pregnancy was an elective abortion.

I am not going to take it to the extreme of 37 weeks. If that's where you have to go for this debate - - you lose. It's rare and usually involves complications.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: UKTruth

No one is suggesting we kill them.

Just abandon them. Aren't you the bastion of moral platitudes!

It's not difficult - ending a life is not even remotely similar to deporting an illegal alien.
The comparison is absurd.

a reply to: Bone75

should a parent be able to force a nine year old child to endure any lifesaving medical treatment? if the parent chooses to with hold such treatment from the child, what usually happens?

a reply to: MysticPearl

but after viability, then the care doesn't actually have to come from the genetic mother does it?
I don't care what anyone says, even if we could find and safely remove the 6 week old fetus... there is no way that anyone could care for it at our present stage of technology... it is not viable, not with even our most advanced medical science.