Should Abortion Be Illegal Once a Heartbeat Is Detectable?

[Shogun]

Across the country, Republicans and Democrats are wrangling over proposed changes to state abortion laws. On Tuesday, the Ohio House of Representatives voted on a measure that has the power to transform the state’s — and the nation’s — abortion dialogue. In a landmark move, the House voted 54 to 43 to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat becomes detectable to doctors.

The measure, known as the “Heartbeat Bill,” has been touted by Republicans in the state, with the majority of them voting affirmatively for its passage. There has been no shortage of controversy surrounding the proposal, as a heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks (by some accounts, it can be found even earlier). Also, the measure does not include exemptions for rape or incest, but it does include one for the health of the mother. Reuters has more about this intriguing legislative initiative:

Should Abortion Be Illegal Once a Heartbeat Is Detectable? | Breaking news and opinion on The Blaze

 

[Shogun]

While the source (The Blaze) is a bit laughable, this article caught my attention because I've made this very same suggestion regarding A GREAT INTERNET ABORTION COMPROMISE spanning all the way back to my very first posted thread on this forum.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Across the country, Republicans and Democrats are wrangling over proposed changes to state abortion laws. On Tuesday, the Ohio House of Representatives voted on a measure that has the power to transform the state’s — and the nation’s — abortion dialogue. In a landmark move, the House voted 54 to 43 to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat becomes detectable to doctors.

The measure, known as the “Heartbeat Bill,” has been touted by Republicans in the state, with the majority of them voting affirmatively for its passage. There has been no shortage of controversy surrounding the proposal, as a heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks (by some accounts, it can be found even earlier). Also, the measure does not include exemptions for rape or incest, but it does include one for the health of the mother. Reuters has more about this intriguing legislative initiative:

Should Abortion Be Illegal Once a Heartbeat Is Detectable? | Breaking news and opinion on The Blaze

Demagoguery at its finest. Did the 'moral' majority who voted in the affirmative also guarantee other rights after birth? Clean water, clean air, proper healthcare, a good educaton, a safe neighborhood, two parents who nurtured and didn't abuse and maintain a sober & clean home and offer proper nutrition?

Did they provide for free contraceptives to any women of child bearing years? Proper sex education in the schools so that young girls and boys understand the dangers of STD and methods to prevent pregnancy?

Do these same autocrats who deny women the right to chose also provide funding for providing women with an understanding of domestic violence, power and control and how a child makes extricating themselves from such a relationship much more dangerous for she and her children?

Did they fund shelter's for women and children? Did they fund the court system so prosecutors and probation officers are trained on victimology and domestic violence? Is there funding to treat offenders for substance abuse and anger management while in custody and after release. Are Probation and Parole Officers funded to supervise caseloads of DV offenders with numbers low enough to assure enforcement of stay away and restraining orders?

Of course not, there is no revenue to offer any of these services. And anyway, when I suggest such services doesn't that make me a "statist' or defender of 'nanny statism"?

 

[FuelRod]

Across the country, Republicans and Democrats are wrangling over proposed changes to state abortion laws. On Tuesday, the Ohio House of Representatives voted on a measure that has the power to transform the state’s — and the nation’s — abortion dialogue. In a landmark move, the House voted 54 to 43 to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat becomes detectable to doctors.

The measure, known as the “Heartbeat Bill,” has been touted by Republicans in the state, with the majority of them voting affirmatively for its passage. There has been no shortage of controversy surrounding the proposal, as a heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks (by some accounts, it can be found even earlier). Also, the measure does not include exemptions for rape or incest, but it does include one for the health of the mother. Reuters has more about this intriguing legislative initiative:

Should Abortion Be Illegal Once a Heartbeat Is Detectable? | Breaking news and opinion on The Blaze

Demagoguery at its finest. Did the 'moral' majority who voted in the affirmative also guarantee other rights after birth? Clean water, clean air, proper healthcare, a good educaton, a safe neighborhood, two parents who nurtured and didn't abuse and maintain a sober & clean home and offer proper nutrition?

Did they provide for free contraceptives to any women of child bearing years? Proper sex education in the schools so that young girls and boys understand the dangers of STD and methods to prevent pregnancy?

Do these same autocrats who deny women the right to chose also provide funding for providing women with an understanding of domestic violence, power and control and how a child makes extricating themselves from such a relationship much more dangerous for she and her children?

Did they fund shelter's for women and children? Did they fund the court system so prosecutors and probation officers are trained on victimology and domestic violence? Is there funding to treat offenders for substance abuse and anger management while in custody and after release. Are Probation and Parole Officers funded to supervise caseloads of DV offenders with numbers low enough to assure enforcement of stay away and restraining orders?

Of course not, there is no revenue to offer any of these services. And anyway, when I suggest such services doesn't that make me a "statist' or defender of 'nanny statism"?

No. But we're humans. Not dogs.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I don't see anything wrong with that.
It would be pretty ridiculous to try and argue that it is not a life yet at that point.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Across the country, Republicans and Democrats are wrangling over proposed changes to state abortion laws. On Tuesday, the Ohio House of Representatives voted on a measure that has the power to transform the state’s — and the nation’s — abortion dialogue. In a landmark move, the House voted 54 to 43 to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat becomes detectable to doctors.

The measure, known as the “Heartbeat Bill,” has been touted by Republicans in the state, with the majority of them voting affirmatively for its passage. There has been no shortage of controversy surrounding the proposal, as a heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks (by some accounts, it can be found even earlier). Also, the measure does not include exemptions for rape or incest, but it does include one for the health of the mother. Reuters has more about this intriguing legislative initiative:

Should Abortion Be Illegal Once a Heartbeat Is Detectable? | Breaking news and opinion on The Blaze

Demagoguery at its finest. Did the 'moral' majority who voted in the affirmative also guarantee other rights after birth? Clean water, clean air, proper healthcare, a good educaton, a safe neighborhood, two parents who nurtured and didn't abuse and maintain a sober & clean home and offer proper nutrition?

Did they provide for free contraceptives to any women of child bearing years? Proper sex education in the schools so that young girls and boys understand the dangers of STD and methods to prevent pregnancy?

Do these same autocrats who deny women the right to chose also provide funding for providing women with an understanding of domestic violence, power and control and how a child makes extricating themselves from such a relationship much more dangerous for she and her children?

Did they fund shelter's for women and children? Did they fund the court system so prosecutors and probation officers are trained on victimology and domestic violence? Is there funding to treat offenders for substance abuse and anger management while in custody and after release. Are Probation and Parole Officers funded to supervise caseloads of DV offenders with numbers low enough to assure enforcement of stay away and restraining orders?

Of course not, there is no revenue to offer any of these services. And anyway, when I suggest such services doesn't that make me a "statist' or defender of 'nanny statism"?

No. But we're humans. Not dogs.

You're comment is vague. Are you really equating women and children with dogs?

 

[theHawk]

Of course it should be illegal at that point.

Its amazing how liberals pick and choose which scientific facts to ignore. They don't want to admit that the unborn has its own DNA and its growing right from the begining.

Its also rather amazing that liberals don't want the people to have any say on the subject. Any attempts of bringing the subject to the people for a vote is met with fury. And yet Americans consistantly vote that abortion should not be used freely as birth control.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Of course it should be illegal at that point.

Its amazing how liberals pick and choose which scientific facts to ignore. They don't want to admit that the unborn has its own DNA and its growing right from the begining.

Its also rather amazing that liberals don't want the people to have any say on the subject. Any attempts of bringing the subject to the people for a vote is met with fury. And yet Americans consistantly vote that abortion should not be used freely as birth control.

I don't know anyone who thinks abortion as a means of birth control is sane or practical. As for your being amazed, not all liberals hope to shut up the right to life crowd; your comment is pure hyperbole.

There was no fury in my post on this issue, unless pointing out the obvious demagoguery meets your defintiion of fury.

We punish illegality in America in two ways: we take away someone's money, and/or, we take away someone's liberty and freedom (which may include jail, prison or execution). Making abortion jillegal as early as this bill provides suggests that those who chose to do so might be charged with a capital crime and executed.

Of course you chose to disregard the reasons for abortion, means of contraception and issues of domestic violence and power and control. Why?

 

[theHawk]

Of course it should be illegal at that point.

Its amazing how liberals pick and choose which scientific facts to ignore. They don't want to admit that the unborn has its own DNA and its growing right from the begining.

Its also rather amazing that liberals don't want the people to have any say on the subject. Any attempts of bringing the subject to the people for a vote is met with fury. And yet Americans consistantly vote that abortion should not be used freely as birth control.

I don't know anyone who thinks abortion as a means of birth control is sane or practical. As for your being amazed, not all liberals hope to shut up the right to life crowd; your comment is pure hyperbole.

There was no fury in my post on this issue, unless pointing out the obvious demagoguery meets your defintiion of fury.

We punish illegality in America in two ways: we take away someone's money, and/or, we take away someone's liberty and freedom (which may include jail, prison or execution). Making abortion jillegal as early as this bill provides suggests that those who chose to do so might be charged with a capital crime and executed.

Of course you chose to disregard the reasons for abortion, means of contraception and issues of domestic violence and power and control. Why?

The world doesn't revolve around you, I wasn't even referring to your post.

There are plenty of left wing nuts who think abortion is a "right" and can be used for whatever reason the mother sees fit, even if you choose to ignore them.

Thanks for stating the obvious that making something illegal will lead to arrests and jail time("taking away their liberty") for those who chose to break the law.

And yes, I choose to ignore things like domestic violence and "power and control" (whatever the hell that means) as valid reasons for abortion.
Would those be justifiable reasons to muder other people?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Of course it should be illegal at that point.

Its amazing how liberals pick and choose which scientific facts to ignore. They don't want to admit that the unborn has its own DNA and its growing right from the begining.

Its also rather amazing that liberals don't want the people to have any say on the subject. Any attempts of bringing the subject to the people for a vote is met with fury. And yet Americans consistantly vote that abortion should not be used freely as birth control.

I don't know anyone who thinks abortion as a means of birth control is sane or practical. As for your being amazed, not all liberals hope to shut up the right to life crowd; your comment is pure hyperbole.

There was no fury in my post on this issue, unless pointing out the obvious demagoguery meets your defintiion of fury.

We punish illegality in America in two ways: we take away someone's money, and/or, we take away someone's liberty and freedom (which may include jail, prison or execution). Making abortion jillegal as early as this bill provides suggests that those who chose to do so might be charged with a capital crime and executed.

Of course you chose to disregard the reasons for abortion, means of contraception and issues of domestic violence and power and control. Why?

The world doesn't revolve around you, I wasn't even referring to your post.

There are plenty of left wing nuts who think abortion is a "right" and can be used for whatever reason the mother sees fit, even if you choose to ignore them.

Thanks for stating the obvious that making something illegal will lead to arrests and jail time("taking away their liberty") for those who chose to break the law.

And yes, I choose to ignore things like domestic violence and "power and control" (whatever the hell that means) as valid reasons for abortion.
Would those be justifiable reasons to muder other people?

You're really fucked up. Willful ignorance is not a virtue, though, I'm pretty sure your ignorance is both willful and congenital.

 

[peach174]

I could not do it.
I think that women should be told the full facts before they make this decision.
They aren't. They find out about it after the abortion.
Abortionists don't want them to know, because they say it sways the woman's decision.
I think it is totally wrong not to be told before you have it done.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9Vvfckoq8w&NR=1]YouTube - ‪An Aborted Baby Dies A Violent Painful Death (Truth # 2)‬‏[/ame]

 

[Wry Catcher]

I could not do it.
I think that women should be told the full facts before they make this decision.
They aren't. They find out about it after the abortion.
Abortinists don't want them to know, becuse they say it sways the woman's decesion.
I think it is totally wrong not to be told before you have it done.

YouTube - ‪An Aborted Baby Dies A Violent Painful Death (Truth # 2)‬‏

So, do you agree age approprite sex education including facts on contraception, STD, abortion, domestic violence and issues of power and control in relationships are needed?

 

[peach174]

I could not do it.
I think that women should be told the full facts before they make this decision.
They aren't. They find out about it after the abortion.
Abortionists don't want them to know, because they say it sways the woman's decision.
I think it is totally wrong not to be told before you have it done.

YouTube - ‪An Aborted Baby Dies A Violent Painful Death (Truth # 2)‬‏

So, do you agree age appropriate sex education including facts on contraception, STD, abortion, domestic violence and issues of power and control in relationships are needed?

I thought it was already being taught in High Schools.

 

[theHawk]

I don't know anyone who thinks abortion as a means of birth control is sane or practical. As for your being amazed, not all liberals hope to shut up the right to life crowd; your comment is pure hyperbole.

There was no fury in my post on this issue, unless pointing out the obvious demagoguery meets your defintiion of fury.

We punish illegality in America in two ways: we take away someone's money, and/or, we take away someone's liberty and freedom (which may include jail, prison or execution). Making abortion jillegal as early as this bill provides suggests that those who chose to do so might be charged with a capital crime and executed.

Of course you chose to disregard the reasons for abortion, means of contraception and issues of domestic violence and power and control. Why?

The world doesn't revolve around you, I wasn't even referring to your post.

There are plenty of left wing nuts who think abortion is a "right" and can be used for whatever reason the mother sees fit, even if you choose to ignore them.

Thanks for stating the obvious that making something illegal will lead to arrests and jail time("taking away their liberty") for those who chose to break the law.

And yes, I choose to ignore things like domestic violence and "power and control" (whatever the hell that means) as valid reasons for abortion.
Would those be justifiable reasons to muder other people?

You're really fucked up. Willful ignorance is not a virtue, though, I'm pretty sure your ignorance is both willful and congenital.

I am the one that is "fucked up"? I am not the one trying to use domestic violence as an excuse to kill a child.

You're one hell of a person to be lecturing anyone on willful ignorance.

 

[Bern80]

I don't know anyone who thinks abortion as a means of birth control is sane or practical. As for your being amazed, not all liberals hope to shut up the right to life crowd; your comment is pure hyperbole.

There was no fury in my post on this issue, unless pointing out the obvious demagoguery meets your defintiion of fury.

We punish illegality in America in two ways: we take away someone's money, and/or, we take away someone's liberty and freedom (which may include jail, prison or execution). Making abortion jillegal as early as this bill provides suggests that those who chose to do so might be charged with a capital crime and executed.

Of course you chose to disregard the reasons for abortion, means of contraception and issues of domestic violence and power and control. Why?

The world doesn't revolve around you, I wasn't even referring to your post.

There are plenty of left wing nuts who think abortion is a "right" and can be used for whatever reason the mother sees fit, even if you choose to ignore them.

Thanks for stating the obvious that making something illegal will lead to arrests and jail time("taking away their liberty") for those who chose to break the law.

And yes, I choose to ignore things like domestic violence and "power and control" (whatever the hell that means) as valid reasons for abortion.
Would those be justifiable reasons to muder other people?

You're really fucked up. Willful ignorance is not a virtue, though, I'm pretty sure your ignorance is both willful and congenital.

He has a perfectly good point wry. You claim there is some hypocrisy by outlawing certain abortions but not providing all these resources once a child is born. You're basically saying abortion is justified because it's preferable to the child being abused later. He is simply pointing out the lunacy in that argument. If that's true it should apply to any child, born or not.

 

[theHawk]

The world doesn't revolve around you, I wasn't even referring to your post.

There are plenty of left wing nuts who think abortion is a "right" and can be used for whatever reason the mother sees fit, even if you choose to ignore them.

Thanks for stating the obvious that making something illegal will lead to arrests and jail time("taking away their liberty") for those who chose to break the law.

And yes, I choose to ignore things like domestic violence and "power and control" (whatever the hell that means) as valid reasons for abortion.
Would those be justifiable reasons to muder other people?

You're really fucked up. Willful ignorance is not a virtue, though, I'm pretty sure your ignorance is both willful and congenital.

He has a perfectly good point wry. You claim there is some hypocrisy by outlawing certain abortions but not providing all these resources once a child is born. You're basically saying abortion is justified because it's preferable to the child being abused later. He is simply pointing out the lunacy in that argument. If that's true it should apply to any child, born or not.

That is exactly right, but people like Wry Catcher are too blinded by their own stupidity to see that.

I have had several conversations with people I know who support abortion, and it usually boils down to the same reasoning - that if a pregnant girl is living in poverty then it would be 'cruel' to bring a child into that environment. As if the child would rather just be dead than to live in a poor home.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The world doesn't revolve around you, I wasn't even referring to your post.

There are plenty of left wing nuts who think abortion is a "right" and can be used for whatever reason the mother sees fit, even if you choose to ignore them.

Thanks for stating the obvious that making something illegal will lead to arrests and jail time("taking away their liberty") for those who chose to break the law.

And yes, I choose to ignore things like domestic violence and "power and control" (whatever the hell that means) as valid reasons for abortion.
Would those be justifiable reasons to muder other people?

You're really fucked up. Willful ignorance is not a virtue, though, I'm pretty sure your ignorance is both willful and congenital.

I am the one that is "fucked up"? I am not the one trying to use domestic violence as an excuse to kill a child.

You're one hell of a person to be lecturing anyone on willful ignorance.

You really are stupid and dishonest. Never did I suggest that DV was an excuse for abortion. Impregnating women is a common method imployed by abusers to gain power and control. Of course you acknowledged your ignorance of power and control in relationships proudly. Which is why I conclude you are "fucked Up". In polite words a callous and ignorant jerk.

 

[elvis]

While the source (The Blaze) is a bit laughable, this article caught my attention because I've made this very same suggestion regarding A GREAT INTERNET ABORTION COMPROMISE spanning all the way back to my very first posted thread on this forum.

It makes sense to me. If someone is out cold on the floor, what is the first thing the paramedics look for as a sign of life? This has been my stand for a long time as well.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course it should be illegal at that point.

Its amazing how liberals pick and choose which scientific facts to ignore. They don't want to admit that the unborn has its own DNA and its growing right from the begining.

Its also rather amazing that liberals don't want the people to have any say on the subject. Any attempts of bringing the subject to the people for a vote is met with fury. And yet Americans consistantly vote that abortion should not be used freely as birth control.

So true!
Let me amplify on that....

"In 1999, Peter Singer, a former professor at Australia’s Monash University, became the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the Princeton University Center for Human Values. At Princeton, Singer is molding and shaping the views of future leaders in medicine, law, education and business.

Singer’s appointment was met with shock and dismay by those who were aware of his views. He is an outspoken advocate of infanticide and euthanasia. In a 1983 article, Singer negatively compared the value of a handicapped newborn with that of a pig:

If we compare a severely defective human infant with a nonhuman animal, a dog or a pig, for example, we will often find the nonhuman to have superior capacities, both actual and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness, communication, and anything else that can plausibly be considered morally significant. Only the fact that the defective infant is a member of the species Homo sapiens leads it to be treated differently from the dog or pig. Species alone, however, is not morally relevant.(37)

Apparently the president of Princeton considers advocacy of infant killing to be in the same category as differing views on economic policy — just one more topic of academic debate.

While Singer vociferously condemns killing animals, his opposition to killing pales when it comes to humans. “I do think that it is sometimes appropriate to kill a human infant,” he told the Cape Cod Times. “For me, the relevant question is, what makes it so seriously wrong to take a life?” he asked. “Those of you who are not vegetarians are responsible for taking a life every time you eat. Species is no more relevant than race in making these judgments.”(49)

Assisted Suicide: Not for Adults Only? | Patients Rights Council


It should be noted that Singer was selected by President Obama as one of his advisors.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're really fucked up. Willful ignorance is not a virtue, though, I'm pretty sure your ignorance is both willful and congenital.

He has a perfectly good point wry. You claim there is some hypocrisy by outlawing certain abortions but not providing all these resources once a child is born. You're basically saying abortion is justified because it's preferable to the child being abused later. He is simply pointing out the lunacy in that argument. If that's true it should apply to any child, born or not.

That is exactly right, but people like Wry Catcher are too blinded by their own stupidity to see that.

I have had several conversations with people I know who support abortion, and it usually boils down to the same reasoning - that if a pregnant girl is living in poverty then it would be 'cruel' to bring a child into that environment. As if the child would rather just be dead than to live in a poor home.

No, he does not have a point, perfect or otherwise. Neither do you, and your straw man won't burn, Bern.

Not all pregnancies are equal. Some 'babies' suffer congential medical issues which no medical interventions can repair, some pregnancies are the result of rape or incest, and some the result of ignorance or efforts by a man to exercise power and control over the woman.

The authors and supporters of the bill in question are demagogues who paint with a broad brush and offer women a Hobson's Choice. I simply suggest that if they oppose abortion, they fund the means for women to learn how to prevent pregnancy, how DV and power and control can take away their choice to become pregnant, and they abide by the law as determined in Roe v. Wade.