Iowa set to ban abortions after six weeks

a reply to: scrounger

Given the tech today and the fact that babies are surviving and thriving with younger premature births the argument its "potential life" is laughable at best, not helping your pro abortion on demand in reality.

so a women who is six weeks pregnant can just go to the doctor's office, have the little, very little tyke safely removed from her body and placed in a similar environment where it can thrive and continue to develop during her lunch break and be back at work on time?? no??? then I don't see what the relevance of your statement is considering the topic of this thread. the states and federal government has the right to regulate abortion as to ensure the safety of the procedure up to the time of viability.. or to put another way, it can be removed and have a chance to survive on it's own. after that point, the states and federal gov't can, AND DO have laws to protect the life of the fetus.
but at that point, if the women doesn't want to or can't continue the pregnancy any longer, labor can be induced, or a c-section can be performed and the premature baby born has at least some chance of survival.
but we're talking 6 weeks here.... not six week after you miss your period... but rather 6 weeks after conception, which happens soon after ovulation, which many women have no idea where they are ovulating, and at best, even informed women can only estimate when that is. once fertilized, the little tyke makes it's way into the uterus and implants itself,which takes time, and only then does the body start producing the hormones that the pregnancy tests are looking for. and, it takes time for those hormones to build up to a level for those tests to pick up. so, at best, a women has about of 4 week window to determine that she is pregnant and decide if she wants to abort, and realistically speaking, there is no way for her to really know for sure at what time that clock begins ticking! and if she was using birth control, she may not even realize there is any cause for concern, after all she hasn't missed her period yet, and when she does, she will probably just wait a few precious days thinking that maybe it's late. in plain simple words, this law effectively bans abortion because it doesn't give women the time to realize she is pregnant, get herself to the doctor and have the most basic tests done to determine if there's reason to think that there might be excessive risks involved in the pregnancy.. so, quite frankly.... WHEN THE LITTLE TYKE IS VIABLE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING, NOR DOES YOUR IMAGINARY FUTURISTIC WORLD WHERE FETAL TRANSPLANTS ARE COMMON PRACTICE!

what is it about the CHOICE OF THE WOMAN that changes the PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS of what is in her from a LIVING BEING that ending its existence is MURDER (killing ) to a "potential life" , mass of cells, whatever term other than a life that is just removed .

ummm..... it's her body? she is the one going through the morning sickness and other discomforts of pregnancy. some of which might not be as trivial as some people want to make them out of be.. and if a women has reason to believe that a pregnancy may cause some severe problems later in the pregnancy, may debilitate her for a time, maybe it's best to at least give her the danged time to consult with the doctor and find out weather her fear is justified instead of giving her what really amounts to probably a week or maybe two after she has her first hints of pregnancy to make such an important decision. and, to be blunt... it makes absolutely no sense to force her to wait around for those fears to become reality and is endangering her life and health when by the time it does, an abortion would pose more danger to her!

a reply to: dawnstar


first I presented the cases of premature birth children to clearly show with FACTS that the claim its "a potential life" is BS.
Not that a woman can just go into a doctors office and have it taken out
..but hey that's standard tactic of pro abortion is to take a point and present an example with no basis in reality and somehow claim it disproves something.

your last part about the "discomfort of pregnancy" to the woman
DUH its uncomfortable and has stress on her body.
so your claiming thats an excuse just to remove it?
REALLY personal discomfort?
wow

You took what is an acceptable claim for abortion of medical safety and tried to blatently twist it to somehow say a womans CHOICE is medical necessity?
wow every woman is now a doctor that can self diagnose .. really the silliness of your comment tells volumes.

that is why we have doctors to help determine someones "discomfort" and a true medical need.

but in all your comments you DONT ANSWER the basic question I keep putting forth.

Outside of LEGIT medical condition, rape or incest what EXACTLY changes the PHYSICAL properties of whats in a woman body that if she doesnt want it (ABORTION ON DEMAND) its not a life and killing it is not murder but if someone else does UNDER LAW its a life and murder?

BTW murder isnt a crime and has prison time for "potential life" but LIFE OF A HUMAN BEING.

that is why PEOPLE ARE IN PRISON NOW for MURDERING A FETUS/CHILD/WHATEVER as a SEPERATE CHARGE AND ENTITY.

it amazes me that NOT ONE pro abortion supporter wants to answer this question directly.

Scrounger

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: scrounger


I cherry picked nothing. Potential human life is a phrase that was used in the SCOTUS decision Roe V Wade. Child in utero is a phrase used in the hypocritical Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which does absolutely nothing to "protect" the in born.

This is a decided issue. Roe V Wade is the law of the land. This is about the autonomy of women's reproductive choices, regardless of your moral outrage.

You keep quoting this law but IGNORE the legal facts of it

again if a person shoots a pregnant woman and both are not killed the shooter is charged with ATTEMPTED MURDER on TWO SEPERATE PERSONS...the woman and the "fetus" (if that term makes you feel better)

if the child survives but the woman dies...they receive ATTEMPTED MURDER on the child and the woman MURDER...again two separate charges from two entities.

if the woman survives and the "fetus" dies...its ATTEMPTED MURDER on the woman and MURDER on the fetus.

in all these situations people ARE SERVING TIME IN PRISON .

NO where in the court cases is there a charge or conviction of "taking away the womans right to choose".

Again you are refusing to answer what PHYSICAL PROPERTIES of the 'fetus" changes that if a woman chooses (yes its legal we get that but not germane to the question) abortion its not murder and not a person

but if some else kills it it they get a charge (and have been convicted) OF MURDER of a person

BTW look up the definition of MURDER...it is not on a "potential life" but on a PERSON.

I guess the TRUTH that PURELY PHYSICAL REALITY is its a person/human.
You are killing a person
just one is legal and one is not

Scrounger

a reply to: scrounger


And, just how does this law, The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, protect the unborn?

On the other hand, Rove V Wade protects the woman's choice.

And, on another note, the US Constitutional specifically states that its rights are only granted to persons born. Unborn "persons" have no constitutional rights.

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.

Keep telling yourself that.

I just threw up in my mouth....

a reply to: scrounger

first that little law you are griping about was pushed by the pro-life crowd... the pro-choice crowd didn't actually like the idea because they knew it would be used, just as you are using it now.
second, that stupid little law that we both seem to dislike so much has morphed itself in other similar laws and there has been MORE WOMEN THROWN IN JAIL BECAUSE THEY MADE THE HORRIBLE ACT OF HAVING A MISCARRIAGE than there has men!!

and yes, the discomfort a person is feeling during a pregnancy should be considered.. especially if that discomfort is preventing her from full filling the responsibilities she has been performing all along. that's my opinion, you are gonna have to live with it. and, as long as we have hospitals turning away women who are in the process of miscarrying, who are in a great amount of discomfort, knowing full well that there is no chance for the baby, instead of following the AMA's recommended procedure for treatment... you aren't gonna get me to budge one inch on that.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: scrounger

first that little law you are griping about was pushed by the pro-life crowd... the pro-choice crowd didn't actually like the idea because they knew it would be used, just as you are using it now.
second, that stupid little law that we both seem to dislike so much has morphed itself in other similar laws and there has been MORE WOMEN THROWN IN JAIL BECAUSE THEY MADE THE HORRIBLE ACT OF HAVING A MISCARRIAGE than there has men!!

Yet I dont see the "pro choice crowd" doing ANYTHING TO CHANGE THIS.
In fact all I see and can be found in research is trying to stop ANY ANTI ABORTION LAW (including trimester abortions) .
If as you claim your supporters dont like this why not rally and push legislators to change the law?
hmmmmmm

and yes, the discomfort a person is feeling during a pregnancy should be considered.. especially if that discomfort is preventing her from full filling the responsibilities she has been performing all along. that's my opinion, you are gonna have to live with it.

Yes YOUR OPINION.
that does not change basic BIOLOGICAL FACT that pregnancy isnt an easy peasy process.
guess you gonna "have to live with it"

and, as long as we have hospitals turning away women who are in the process of miscarrying, who are in a great amount of discomfort, knowing full well that there is no chance for the baby, instead of following the AMA's recommended procedure for treatment... you aren't gonna get me to budge one inch on that.

First WHERE IN HELL IS ANY HOSPITAL TURNING AWAY women who are in process of miscarrying as ACCEPTED PRACTICE?
I cant seem to find that ANYWHERE in any US hospital protocols
In fact ITS THE LAW they must TREAT ANYONE IN DISTRESS OR MEDICAL EMERGENCY.

Add to that the FACT if a woman is in process of miscarrying that is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT IN EVERY WAY from having an ABORTION ON DEMAND.

the fact that you are attempting to LIE about hospital procedures on treating medical emergencies and the fact your calling a NATURAL MISCARRIAGE a CHOSEN PLANNED abortion just shows your desperation to justify your pro abortion support and to hell with facts.

Text Red

Now you have resorted to OUTRIGHT LIES to support your abortion on demand stance.

Still after multiple responses REFUSE to answer my ONE BASIC QUESTION.

How is it that if a woman CHOOSES to kill whats inside her its NOT A LIFE but a "potential" life or mass of cells (among other names) and not be charged as murder.

but if someone else does its NOT A CRIME OF DENYING A WOMANS RIGHT TO CHOOSE....BUT MURDER OF A HUMAN .
To which there are many people IN PRISON FOR THIS CHARGE.

BTW the law recognizes MURDER ONLY in humans, not "potential life" .

but given that multiple times you wont answer the question and now BLATANTLY lie on hospitals I guess either you wont accept or cant accept the hypocrisy and morality of your view.

Scrounger

originally posted by: Arnie123

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.

Keep telling yourself that.

I just threw up in my mouth....

My 1st pregnancy was a beginning of 4th month spontaneous abortion - - I pulled the fetus out of the toilet - - it was NOT a child - - it looked like a transparent pink bean.

Then I had 2 LIVING CHILDREN

Then I had a chosen abortion.

I speak from real first hand experience.

Do you?

a reply to: Annee

Seriously, it wasn't a bean, regardless of your experience. It was a human being.

a reply to: scrounger

I don't believe I lied...

www.theguardian.com...

and it isn't me that is equating miscarriage with planned termination of pregnancy...
it's the hosptials that take this position. along with those that have managed to morph that law that you keep griping about around so they can jail women for the crime of having a miscarriage for such things as falling down the stairs, getting into a car accident.

But it is not just those who support abortion rights who have reason to worry. Anti-abortion measures pose a risk to all pregnant women, including those who want to be pregnant.

Such laws are increasingly being used as the basis for arresting women who have no intention of ending a pregnancy and for preventing women from making their own decisions about how they will give birth.

How does this play out? Based on the belief that he had an obligation to give a fetus a chance for life, a judge in Washington, D.C., ordered a critically ill 27-year-old woman who was 26 weeks pregnant to undergo a cesarean section, which he understood might kill her. Neither the woman nor her baby survived.

In Iowa, a pregnant woman who fell down a flight of stairs was reported to the police after seeking help at a hospital. She was arrested for “attempted fetal homicide.”

In Utah, a woman gave birth to twins; one was stillborn. Health care providers believed that the stillbirth was the result of the woman’s decision to delay having a cesarean. She was arrested on charges of fetal homicide.

In Louisiana, a woman who went to the hospital for unexplained vaginal bleeding was locked up for over a year on charges of second-degree murder before medical records revealed she had suffered a miscarriage at 11 to 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Florida has had a number of such cases. In one, a woman was held prisoner at a hospital to prevent her from going home while she appeared to be experiencing a miscarriage. She was forced to undergo a cesarean. Neither the detention nor the surgery prevented the pregnancy loss, but they did keep this mother from caring for her two small children at home. While a state court later found the detention unlawful, the opinion suggested that if the hospital had taken her prisoner later in her pregnancy, its actions might have been permissible.

In another case, a woman who had been in labor at home was picked up by a sheriff, strapped down in the back of an ambulance, taken to a hospital, and forced to have a cesarean she did not want. When this mother later protested what had happened, a court concluded that the woman’s personal constitutional rights “clearly did not outweigh the interests of the State of Florida in preserving the life of the unborn child.”

Anti-abortion reasoning has also provided the justification for arresting pregnant women who experience depression and have attempted suicide. A 22-year-old in South Carolina who was eight months pregnant attempted suicide by jumping out a window. She survived despite suffering severe injuries. Because she lost the pregnancy, she was arrested and jailed for the crime of homicide by child abuse.

www.elle.com...

I don't seem to be lying on that one either...

matter of fact, I might be wrong about this being a result of the law you are talking about being twisted against women and that some of these arrests might predate it. which would lead me to twist you question somewhat...
why not prosecute men when their actions cause the death of the unborn if you are choosing to prosecute women because their body screws up and miscarries the fetus?

Abortion should be legal upto the 4th trimester. The more people that off their offspring the less competition for resources there will be for my children.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Annee

Seriously, it wasn't a bean, regardless of your experience. It was a human being.

NO

It was not viable without a host.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Annee

Seriously, it wasn't a bean, regardless of your experience. It was a human being.

NO

It was not viable without a host.

I think abortion is proof of evolution. The weakest of the species willingly remove themselves from the chain of life.
I can probably understand YOUR reasoning to abort your own genetic line. But what confuses me, why allow the 2 that got away from your kill room? You had many months to do it. Why let the others live?

I ask that trying to understand your point of view when it comes from choosing who lives and who doesn't.

And do you agree that if planned parenthood sells baby body parts for profit, isnxt it only right that the mother be treated as an independant contractor and is due monetary compensation for 9 months of work? Why should the grainery reap all the profits from harvesting grain when the farmer incurred all the costs and labor planting and tending to the fields?

I think if abortion is an elective right then by molech they should be allowed to profit from it also like the other contractors in the business.
It looks like slave labor to me, treating mothers like human chattel stealing the fruit without just compensation.

a reply to: bulwarkz

And do you agree that if planned parenthood sells baby body parts for profit,

Not true.

isnxt it only right that the mother be treated as an independant contractor and is due monetary compensation for 9 months of work?

Only if you think that people should be compensated for selling their kidneys and other organs.

I think if abortion is an elective right then by molech they should be allowed to profit from it also like the other contractors in the business.

Abortion IS an elective right. It sounds to me like your moral beef is with unadulterated capitalism.

a reply to: bulwarkz

I was divorcing a man that was jealous of his own children. It was beginning to affect them.

I had been a stay at home mom, with only a high school diploma, who now needed to become fully employed.

I aborted my final pregnancy to give my LIVING CHILDREN a better chance at life.

Another child did not need to be brought into a desperate and toxic situation.

a reply to: Annee

you made the decision you had to, for your family. i support that.

Why did you marry him then in the first place?
I think the bigger problem is poor marriage choices than the repercussions that in your mind is so severe it requires ending life as a solution in some way for life.

Maybe we need iq tests before marriage and the right to breed with other humans.
Let's face it, your moral dilemna does not exist if you chose a large breed dog as your mate.
And the dog might not get jealous where it threatens your children. He could also be a protector.
Obviously the dog fails as a provider unless he is Lassie. But Lassie is a girl dog. Ahhh, like RinTinTin.

And I can say for a fact I never saw a dog perform an abortion.
Not that it matters in an inter-species relationship.
I guess it makes sense now why the US Military made beastiality legal a couple of years ago.

I have heard that large dogs have become popular within the #metoo movement, for protection they say
a reply to: Annee

a reply to: bulwarkz

...you know they sometimes have to separate male dogs from litters so they don't kill them, right?

not sure you know much about dogs OR people

starting to think you live under a bridge though, if you know what i mean.

originally posted by: fiverx313
a reply to: bulwarkz

...you know they sometimes have to separate male dogs from litters so they don't kill them, right?

not sure you know much about dogs OR people

starting to think you live under a bridge though, if you know what i mean.

I am an animal husbandman.
Maybe you can teach me something.
Forgive me for treating people like animals when all they do is use the animal kingdom to justify their base instincts that do not even appeal to animals.
Man/woman are more selfish than hogs today, it is sad to say.
And hogs eat their babies if they feel threatened and they will eat other sows babies if they feel feed is rationed. Kind of like Annees reasoning, but I do not believe she ate either abortion.

a reply to: bulwarkz

sometimes men change once the marriage license is in effect. other men, well they might change when children come into the picture. and, here's a newsflash for ya....
everyone changes over time!!!

but, ya know there's been alot of men complaining about women on these boards also.
ya know, the mother of their child "tricked" them, said they were on the pill... or sterile.
or gee, the women opted for an abortion when he wanted her to keep it...
and on and on...
the same could be said of men...
at least married couples have taken the time to know each other before they were married...
what's the excuse for the men who are dropping their seed into women they barely know? seems the men are just as stupid!!!