20 week Abortion act Passes House of Reps.

[BlindBoo]

Just have to get passed that 60 vote threshold in the Senate.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You said when the brain, heart, and lungs are functioning. If the alveoli of the lungs have not formed, the lungs are not functioning. Alveoli are an integral part of lung function. So, not fully formed will often mean not functional.

In the womb the simulated ability of the lungs is what I am talking about. The lungs expand and contract ambiotic fluid. That is not really breathing, but I thought it obvious that I did not mean 100% functionality as that is impossible in the womb, for the lungs.

 

[Chuz Life]

You said when the brain, heart, and lungs are functioning. If the alveoli of the lungs have not formed, the lungs are not functioning. Alveoli are an integral part of lung function. So, not fully formed will often mean not functional.

In the womb the simulated ability of the lungs is what I am talking about. The lungs expand and contract ambiotic fluid. That is not really breathing, but I thought it obvious that I did not mean 100% functionality as that is impossible in the womb, for the lungs.

It's all red herring BULLSHIT anyway.

Neither brain function nor the ability to breathe on your own is a requirement for personhood. The Supreme Court has already said as much in their quote in my sig. Furthermore, our fetal Homicide laws define children in the womb as human beings in ANY stage of development.

The ability to think, breath or feel pain . . . None of that has anything to do with personhood.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You said when the brain, heart, and lungs are functioning. If the alveoli of the lungs have not formed, the lungs are not functioning. Alveoli are an integral part of lung function. So, not fully formed will often mean not functional.

In the womb the simulated ability of the lungs is what I am talking about. The lungs expand and contract ambiotic fluid. That is not really breathing, but I thought it obvious that I did not mean 100% functionality as that is impossible in the womb, for the lungs.

It's all red herring BULLSHIT anyway.

Neither brain function nor the ability to breathe on your own is a requirement for personhood. The Supreme Court has already said as much in their quote in my sig. Furthermore, our fetal Homicide laws define children in the womb as human beings in ANY stage of development.

The ability to think, breath or feel pain . . . None of that has anything to do with personhood.

I am attempting to find a secular criteria for what establishes personhood.

And the SCOTUS quote in your sig does not say that the definition of when personhood is established is known or defined in our laws, unless I am misreading it.

The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

Can you explain to me where I am wrong in my interpretation of your sig?

 

[Chuz Life]

You said when the brain, heart, and lungs are functioning. If the alveoli of the lungs have not formed, the lungs are not functioning. Alveoli are an integral part of lung function. So, not fully formed will often mean not functional.

In the womb the simulated ability of the lungs is what I am talking about. The lungs expand and contract ambiotic fluid. That is not really breathing, but I thought it obvious that I did not mean 100% functionality as that is impossible in the womb, for the lungs.

It's all red herring BULLSHIT anyway.

Neither brain function nor the ability to breathe on your own is a requirement for personhood. The Supreme Court has already said as much in their quote in my sig. Furthermore, our fetal Homicide laws define children in the womb as human beings in ANY stage of development.

The ability to think, breath or feel pain . . . None of that has anything to do with personhood.

I am attempting to find a secular criteria for what establishes personhood.

And the SCOTUS quote in your sig does not say that the definition of when personhood is established is known or defined in our laws, unless I am misreading it.

The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

Can you explain to me where I am wrong in my interpretation of your sig?

You are not so much wrong as you may be missing the timeline a bit.

Forty plus years ago, The SCOTUS said in Roe that States could establish personhood for children in womb. Since then, more than 30 States and even the Federal Government has done exactly that. . . To the extent that the lawmakers had to include an exception to (for now) keep abortions legal.

It is now an issue of whether or not the exceptions that (for now) keep abortions legal are themself constitutional or not.

 

[Tilly]

The President will sign it but blood lust Democrats/Rino's, that's doubtful...

---------------------------------



Washington (CNN)The House of Representatives passed legislation Tuesday that would criminalize abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for instances where the life of the mother is at risk and in cases involving rape or incest.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 237 for and 189 against, largely on party lines.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which is similar to legislation that failed in 2013and 2015, has support from the White House this time around.


House passes ban on abortion after 20 weeks - CNNPolitics

Its a crying shame women have to be suppressed like this. A women's right to choose. I don't care if it's 20 weeks, its still not a living being and is not murder. Women shouldn't be penalized for getting pregnant by a man. A man and woman make a mistake, the man gets no punishment yet Republicans want to treat the woman like a vile criminal for accidentally getting pregnant. Enough suppression of women in this country, it is awful. Women have the right to be sexually liberal and not get punished for it. The man can get as many women pregnant and get a slap on the wrist the woman if she is sexually active and accidentally gets pregnant well shame on her for being sexually active according to Republicans, they want to persecute her and treat her like a vile villain just for wanting an abortion. It really is awful the way this country insists to treat women in this day and age.

Sad very sad this bill got passed in the House.

You don't think 5 months is ample time in which to kill your unborn child?

 

[Borillar]

The President will sign it but blood lust Democrats/Rino's, that's doubtful...

---------------------------------



Washington (CNN)The House of Representatives passed legislation Tuesday that would criminalize abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for instances where the life of the mother is at risk and in cases involving rape or incest.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 237 for and 189 against, largely on party lines.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which is similar to legislation that failed in 2013and 2015, has support from the White House this time around.


House passes ban on abortion after 20 weeks - CNNPolitics

Its a crying shame women have to be suppressed like this. A women's right to choose. I don't care if it's 20 weeks, its still not a living being and is not murder. Women shouldn't be penalized for getting pregnant by a man. A man and woman make a mistake, the man gets no punishment yet Republicans want to treat the woman like a vile criminal for accidentally getting pregnant. Enough suppression of women in this country, it is awful. Women have the right to be sexually liberal and not get punished for it. The man can get as many women pregnant and get a slap on the wrist the woman if she is sexually active and accidentally gets pregnant well shame on her for being sexually active according to Republicans, they want to persecute her and treat her like a vile villain just for wanting an abortion. It really is awful the way this country insists to treat women in this day and age.

Sad very sad this bill got passed in the House.

Birth control and the morning after pill. Those options are out there and available.

For now, until the zealots incrementally take those options away too.

 

[sartre play]

The problem is that wealthy & those able to gather the money will fly to where its legal to abort. the poor will go back to coat hangers & back street abortions. those to poor or to scared will have an unwanted, unable to be cared for properly. end result more kids living on the street, more kids running wild & not learning how to do the right thing. look up the numbers of children now in foster care or living on the street. after there birth how much government support do you back? how much money time or effort are you willing to provide? going by what people post on this board very few are willing to help the poor & think you should pull your self up by your own boot straps, something quite difficult for a young child to do. we need better answers to the abortion problem.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The problem is that wealthy & those able to gather the money will fly to where its legal to abort. the poor will go back to coat hangers & back street abortions. those to poor or to scared will have an unwanted, unable to be cared for properly. end result more kids living on the street, more kids running wild & not learning how to do the right thing. look up the numbers of children now in foster care or living on the street. after there birth how much government support do you back? how much money time or effort are you willing to provide? going by what people post on this board very few are willing to help the poor & think you should pull your self up by your own boot straps, something quite difficult for a young child to do. we need better answers to the abortion problem.

Something like 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester and were the laws to limit it to such a period, then 99% of them would be.

 

[Tilly]

The problem is that wealthy & those able to gather the money will fly to where its legal to abort. the poor will go back to coat hangers & back street abortions. those to poor or to scared will have an unwanted, unable to be cared for properly. end result more kids living on the street, more kids running wild & not learning how to do the right thing. look up the numbers of children now in foster care or living on the street. after there birth how much government support do you back? how much money time or effort are you willing to provide? going by what people post on this board very few are willing to help the poor & think you should pull your self up by your own boot straps, something quite difficult for a young child to do. we need better answers to the abortion problem.

Coat Hangers? There's still 5 months during which a woman can have an abortion!

 

[Montrovant]

You said when the brain, heart, and lungs are functioning. If the alveoli of the lungs have not formed, the lungs are not functioning. Alveoli are an integral part of lung function. So, not fully formed will often mean not functional.

In the womb the simulated ability of the lungs is what I am talking about. The lungs expand and contract ambiotic fluid. That is not really breathing, but I thought it obvious that I did not mean 100% functionality as that is impossible in the womb, for the lungs.

Sorry, it was not obvious to me. I thought you were talking about the kind of functionality that would allow the fetus to survive outside of the womb. I'm not entirely sure why lungs which have not developed enough for actual breathing would be a particularly important developmental stage.

 

[tinydancer]

The President will sign it but blood lust Democrats/Rino's, that's doubtful...

---------------------------------



Washington (CNN)The House of Representatives passed legislation Tuesday that would criminalize abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for instances where the life of the mother is at risk and in cases involving rape or incest.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 237 for and 189 against, largely on party lines.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which is similar to legislation that failed in 2013and 2015, has support from the White House this time around.


House passes ban on abortion after 20 weeks - CNNPolitics

Its a crying shame women have to be suppressed like this. A women's right to choose. I don't care if it's 20 weeks, its still not a living being and is not murder. Women shouldn't be penalized for getting pregnant by a man. A man and woman make a mistake, the man gets no punishment yet Republicans want to treat the woman like a vile criminal for accidentally getting pregnant. Enough suppression of women in this country, it is awful. Women have the right to be sexually liberal and not get punished for it. The man can get as many women pregnant and get a slap on the wrist the woman if she is sexually active and accidentally gets pregnant well shame on her for being sexually active according to Republicans, they want to persecute her and treat her like a vile villain just for wanting an abortion. It really is awful the way this country insists to treat women in this day and age.

Sad very sad this bill got passed in the House.

Birth control and the morning after pill. Those options are out there and available.

For now, until the zealots incrementally take those options away too.

I'm as conservative as can be but I've been for free birth control and after morning pills to PREVENT abortion. Anything to keep a woman from having to make the choice of an abortion.

 

[Montrovant]

You said when the brain, heart, and lungs are functioning. If the alveoli of the lungs have not formed, the lungs are not functioning. Alveoli are an integral part of lung function. So, not fully formed will often mean not functional.

In the womb the simulated ability of the lungs is what I am talking about. The lungs expand and contract ambiotic fluid. That is not really breathing, but I thought it obvious that I did not mean 100% functionality as that is impossible in the womb, for the lungs.

It's all red herring BULLSHIT anyway.

Neither brain function nor the ability to breathe on your own is a requirement for personhood. The Supreme Court has already said as much in their quote in my sig. Furthermore, our fetal Homicide laws define children in the womb as human beings in ANY stage of development.

The ability to think, breath or feel pain . . . None of that has anything to do with personhood.

I am attempting to find a secular criteria for what establishes personhood.

And the SCOTUS quote in your sig does not say that the definition of when personhood is established is known or defined in our laws, unless I am misreading it.

The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

Can you explain to me where I am wrong in my interpretation of your sig?

You are not so much wrong as you may be missing the timeline a bit.

Forty plus years ago, The SCOTUS said in Roe that States could establish personhood for children in womb. Since then, more than 30 States and even the Federal Government has done exactly that. . . To the extent that the lawmakers had to include an exception to (for now) keep abortions legal.

It is now an issue of whether or not the exceptions that (for now) keep abortions legal are themself constitutional or not.

Keep in mind that personhood does not have to be an all-encompassing thing. It's entirely possible for the court to consider personhood as understood by the 14th amendment to be different than personhood as understood by a state's fetal homicide laws.

This work provides some interesting argument that fetal person designations are similar to corporate person designations, and does not make them persons under the 14th.

http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334&context=caselrev

 

[Lumpy 1]

The President will sign it but blood lust Democrats/Rino's, that's doubtful...

---------------------------------



Washington (CNN)The House of Representatives passed legislation Tuesday that would criminalize abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for instances where the life of the mother is at risk and in cases involving rape or incest.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 237 for and 189 against, largely on party lines.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which is similar to legislation that failed in 2013and 2015, has support from the White House this time around.


House passes ban on abortion after 20 weeks - CNNPolitics

Its a crying shame women have to be suppressed like this. A women's right to choose. I don't care if it's 20 weeks, its still not a living being and is not murder. Women shouldn't be penalized for getting pregnant by a man. A man and woman make a mistake, the man gets no punishment yet Republicans want to treat the woman like a vile criminal for accidentally getting pregnant. Enough suppression of women in this country, it is awful. Women have the right to be sexually liberal and not get punished for it. The man can get as many women pregnant and get a slap on the wrist the woman if she is sexually active and accidentally gets pregnant well shame on her for being sexually active according to Republicans, they want to persecute her and treat her like a vile villain just for wanting an abortion. It really is awful the way this country insists to treat women in this day and age.

Sad very sad this bill got passed in the House.

Birth control and the morning after pill. Those options are out there and available.

For now, until the zealots incrementally take those options away too.

I'm as conservative as can be but I've been for free birth control and after morning pills to PREVENT abortion. Anything to keep a woman from having to make the choice of an abortion.

I agree with you.

If this legislation passes and I'm not so sure about the Senate, everyone would be unhappy with it on both sides of the issue but hopefully all could eventually accept that it's a reasonable move in the right direction .

 

[Weatherman2020]

That’s 14 weeks after normal brain activity starts.

Yet the left want them dead at any cost.

 

[Chuz Life]

You said when the brain, heart, and lungs are functioning. If the alveoli of the lungs have not formed, the lungs are not functioning. Alveoli are an integral part of lung function. So, not fully formed will often mean not functional.

In the womb the simulated ability of the lungs is what I am talking about. The lungs expand and contract ambiotic fluid. That is not really breathing, but I thought it obvious that I did not mean 100% functionality as that is impossible in the womb, for the lungs.

It's all red herring BULLSHIT anyway.

Neither brain function nor the ability to breathe on your own is a requirement for personhood. The Supreme Court has already said as much in their quote in my sig. Furthermore, our fetal Homicide laws define children in the womb as human beings in ANY stage of development.

The ability to think, breath or feel pain . . . None of that has anything to do with personhood.

I am attempting to find a secular criteria for what establishes personhood.

And the SCOTUS quote in your sig does not say that the definition of when personhood is established is known or defined in our laws, unless I am misreading it.

The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

Can you explain to me where I am wrong in my interpretation of your sig?

You are not so much wrong as you may be missing the timeline a bit.

Forty plus years ago, The SCOTUS said in Roe that States could establish personhood for children in womb. Since then, more than 30 States and even the Federal Government has done exactly that. . . To the extent that the lawmakers had to include an exception to (for now) keep abortions legal.

It is now an issue of whether or not the exceptions that (for now) keep abortions legal are themself constitutional or not.

Keep in mind that personhood does not have to be an all-encompassing thing. It's entirely possible for the court to consider personhood as understood by the 14th amendment to be different than personhood as understood by a state's fetal homicide laws.

This work provides some interesting argument that fetal person designations are similar to corporate person designations, and does not make them persons under the 14th.

http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334&context=caselrev

When our fetal Homicide laws make it a crime of MURDER to kill a child in the womb. . . The personhood of the victim is being established by that charge. MURDER has a very clear legal definition of one person killing another person in a criminal act.

What other aspect of personhood would Trump that , in your view?

I submit that any law which says it's a crime of MURDER to kill it in ANY one set of circumstances means that it is a person in that respect in ANY and all other circumstances.

Personhood is not a switch that can be simply arbitrarily switched off and on with legislation.

There is a reason no one can be charged with MURDER for killing a corporation and they can be charged with MURDER for killing a child in the womb.

One is a human being and the other is not.

 

[Coyote]

If you're 5 months pregnant, want an abortion, and haven't had one yet... your commitment to it should be questioned.

Except when combined with other factors that are currently at play making abortions more difficult in red states especially. Mandetory wait times necessitating multiple visits, closure of clinics due to prohibitive and arbritary legal standards, forcing women travel hundreds of miles, etc. Also...how do they count 5 months?

 

[TheOldSchool]

If you're 5 months pregnant, want an abortion, and haven't had one yet... your commitment to it should be questioned.

Except when combined with other factors that are currently at play making abortions more difficult in red states especially. Mandetory wait times necessitating multiple visits, closure of clinics due to prohibitive and arbritary legal standards, forcing women travel hundreds of miles, etc. Also...how do they count 5 months?

I said commitment should be questioned. Not rights.

 

[Coyote]

If you're 5 months pregnant, want an abortion, and haven't had one yet... your commitment to it should be questioned.

Except when combined with other factors that are currently at play making abortions more difficult in red states especially. Mandetory wait times necessitating multiple visits, closure of clinics due to prohibitive and arbritary legal standards, forcing women travel hundreds of miles, etc. Also...how do they count 5 months?

I said commitment should be questioned. Not rights.

Thing is...all those factors could nake it more difficult to do it in the timeframe. If this should be a reasonable law then we should also remove all the barriers that prevent women from getting abortions.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Thing is...all those factors could nake it more difficult to do it in the timeframe. If this should be a reasonable law then we should also remove all the barriers that prevent women from getting abortions.

But there is more to the question how best to provide abortion services than simply maximizing the availability of the service.

1) Abortion clinics should still meet the same rigorous standards any other clinic does.

2) The decision of the patient to be fully informed is paramount, so standards as to what that information is and how it is to be conveyed are as important as availability of the abortion.

3) The lives of the unborn should be protected if they are deemed to be individual people by law, and so constraints should be applied at the state level as soon as the Roe v Wade nonsense is remedied.