Iowa set to ban abortions after six weeks

a reply to: Arnie123

Absolutely, whatever is needed to piss off the modern delusional leftist libtard ☺️ In Chinas case, it was one sided, leaving a lop sided population, where have all the girls gone??? Course, my post was to let heartbeats continue and live, not cutting down a specific gender, ala China.

I understand, Arnie. The right of the individual is only valuable when it is of value to the good of the land, right?

For God, species and country right?

Nothing else matters...

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Milkweed

So you'll be willing to help pick up the slack when more babies are put up for adoption?

I would be.
I know several people that adopted foreign babies because it was so much cheaper and easier than getting an American baby.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: intrepid

They managed to get the 20 week limit passed so we shall see.

That's within the scope of R vs W.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: intrepid

They managed to get the 20 week limit passed so we shall see.

That's within the scope of R vs W.

It's hard to say today.
We have states ignoring drug laws.
We have states ignoring immigration laws.
We have cities ignoring gun laws.

I don't know what the hell is possible anymore.

a reply to: Milkweed

Then you would agree to an overhaul of our current adoption laws/procedure?

Right now even an independent adoption costs about $35K.

a reply to: Milkweed

there are tons of adoptable kids in foster care waiting to be adopted also...
you even get to try them out first, and you get many special perks, like free counseling and such.
and, I do believe it is practically free to in my state..

a reply to: Bluntone22

Her body, her choice. Period. Individual freedom should be the norm, and not something that can be legislated away from us.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Anti-abortions bills should be unconstitutional. Abortion has been ruled legal in the US, but Republicans keep pushing back on that. It's sickening.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Once it gets to the SCOTUS it's beyond the scope of the individual states. This is sure to be challenged. IDK if the issues you've mentioned there have been challenged. There's a difference between ignoring laws and enacting them so to quote you..."I don't know what the hell is possible anymore."

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bluntone22

Anti-abortions bills should be unconstitutional. Abortion has been ruled legal in the US, but Republicans keep pushing back on that. It's sickening.

Its sickening to not want to kill babies? HMM good to know

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bluntone22

Anti-abortions bills should be unconstitutional. Abortion has been ruled legal in the US, but Republicans keep pushing back on that. It's sickening.

It's not an anti abortion bill.
It's puting restrictions on abortion.

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Milkweed

So you'll be willing to help pick up the slack when more babies are put up for adoption?

I would be.
I know several people that adopted foreign babies because it was so much cheaper and easier than getting an American baby.

Babies are a precious commodity.

Babies were down today at the close of trading, while gold is up, a half percent.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Regardless, they should be unconstitutional. This is just Republicans trying to bend the rules incrementally so they can get as close to a full ban as possible.

Is six week not enough time to decide upon killing human life?

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bluntone22

Anti-abortions bills should be unconstitutional. Abortion has been ruled legal in the US, but Republicans keep pushing back on that. It's sickening.

Its sickening to not want to kill babies? HMM good to know

And here we go with the idiotic fallacy that being pro-choice == pro-abortion. Never mind that a fetus isn't a baby anyways. Though if you are so interested in not killing babies, how about clearing out that adoption queue by adopting some babies?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Is six week not enough time to decide upon killing human life?

Some women don't even know if they are pregnant that far out. Plus the hoops that Republicans put women through just to get an abortion could also delay the process if she found out around 3 or 4 weeks. And this doesn't even take into account that decisions like this take time to figure out. Women should be able to take their time to figure out if they want the abortion or not.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Is six week not enough time to decide upon killing human life?

Considering that some women don't even realize that they are pregnant at six weeks I would say it's to early.

a reply to: Bluntone22

the six week period starts at the estimated time of conception I think though... so about halfway in the womens cycle...
so, well, it gives you about one cycle of debating on weather you might be pregnant, or just late and for some women, well, they are used to being late and would be less likely to think pregnancy, especially if they were relying on a decent birth control method...
so no, it's more than a restriction.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Is six week not enough time to decide upon killing human life?

Not according to the SCOTUS. If you want an argument on that, which is your want, take it up with them.

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Milkweed

So you'll be willing to help pick up the slack when more babies are put up for adoption?

I would be.
I know several people that adopted foreign babies because it was so much cheaper and easier than getting an American baby.

so very sad but true. more people would love to adopt. but the price is very prohibitive to them. and then you have all the legal hoops to jump through. this is exactly why so many people adopt babies and children outside of rich western nations. and the really sad thing about that is that many of those babies adopted from poorer nations IS in fact in many cases about people wanting to make a buck off of it. yet in a country where "selling babies" is illegal, it somehow costs far more to adopt there? just where does that extortion (which can be well over the tens of thousands of dollars), payments you have to give to be allowed to buy the kids go? adoption of kids should be free. after all you are agreeing to care for, raise, pay for that child as if it were your own. having to buy that child for thousands of dollars is nothing more than child trafficking for profit. there are many people who would love to adopt a child. who would give a supportive and loving home. but can not afford paying the blood money required to buy kids from their home country. this needs to change.

it makes for a poor excuse to back up the argument for murdering babies. when so many who would love to adopt can not afford to do so.