Should Abortion Be Illegal Once a Heartbeat Is Detectable?

[chikenwing]

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"?

And not one of the above has a thing to do with the bill,but nice deflection.

 

[daveman]

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"?

You're right. Better to just kill 'em all.

 

[daveman]

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.

You know that didn't refute anything he said, right?

Or are you saying the world really does revolve around you?

 

[daveman]

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.

Most abortions are for convenience:
Reasons given for having abortions in the United States

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.

I hear not having sex works great.

 

[chikenwing]

The long winded rants ,demanding program funding,and resopnsabilities of everyone but the ones that count,are nothing but deflections from what every would be rational person understands what is really the question,is it a Labrador,hope for a chocolate!!or is a fancy goldfish with those big buggy eyes!! in there and when does it change to something like me??

 

[Wry Catcher]

The long winded rants ,demanding program funding,and resopnsabilities of everyone but the ones that count,are nothing but deflections from what every would be rational person understands what is really the question,is it a Labrador,hope for a chocolate!!or is a fancy goldfish with those big buggy eyes!! in there and when does it change to something like me??

Holy shit, word salad on paper.

I can't help you to comprehend my "long winded rant". It was not written demanding anything as those who comprehend the written word understand.

The bill is demagoguery at its finest; just for you I'll provide a definition of a demagoguer:

"a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people."

Now, in a nutshell, Roe v. Wade is is the historic Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas interpretation of abortion law and making abortion legal in the United States. The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without restriction, and with restrictions in later months, based on the right to privacy.

Now, can you draw an inference from this bit of factual information? (I've have little hope you will).

Hint, Federal Law trumps State Law. The bill was passed to arouse the emotions, passions and prejudices of the people. It has no possibility of passing the test of constitutionality.
(actually it might, if reviewed by the activist Robert's Court it might be approved by five Justices. Can you name the five?).

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

Most abortions are for convenience:
Reasons given for having abortions in the United States

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.

I hear not having sex works great.

1) Most abortions are not for convenience. Having one because you do not feel able to bring it up, or your life is in such a state that having a child would not help, is not convenience. I bet the three women who I know how have had abortions would come under your definition of 'convenience'. Knowing what they went through, it was anything but.
2) Yeah, abstinance only has proven to really work... What do you do for an encore? Through a stray dog a piece of steak and tell it not to eat it?

 

[daveman]

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.

Most abortions are for convenience:
Reasons given for having abortions in the United States

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.

I hear not having sex works great.

1) Most abortions are not for convenience. Having one because you do not feel able to bring it up, or your life is in such a state that having a child would not help, is not convenience. I bet the three women who I know how have had abortions would come under your definition of 'convenience'. Knowing what they went through, it was anything but.

Unless they were raped, or were the victims of incest, or their lives were endangered -- yes, it was for convenience.

2) Yeah, abstinance only has proven to really work... What do you do for an encore? Through a stray dog a piece of steak and tell it not to eat it?

I'm not talking about education, moron. I'm saying not having sex is the only 100% sure birth control method.

It really is simple: If you don't want to have a child, or father a child, don't have sex.

If you do, be prepared to handle the consequences.

Oh, sorry -- I said the C word. I know leftists don't like it.

 

[BOBO]

Medical bills & all related costs are covered in adoption. Woman gets pregnant, woman adopts out baby, Physician is happy, mama is happy, Adopting parents are happy & baby never knows he/she has been adopted out. No losers here as everyone wins. The good part is the politickin' is removed out of the system!

 

[daveman]

Medical bills & all related costs are covered in adoption. Woman gets pregnant, woman adopts out baby, Physician is happy, mama is happy, Adopting parents are happy & baby never knows he/she has been adopted out. No losers here as everyone wins. The good part is the politickin' is removed out of the system!

And that's why the left opposes it. Abortion is a tool to fire up the base with.

 

[Rozman]

Amazing the left is crying tonight because Kansas has new regulations for abortion clinics.They are upset because these clinics will not be performing abortions tomorrow or the next day or the day after at least until they comply with the new regs.

It amazes me with the Lefts love and utter craving for abortions and how sad they get when they don't get to have one any time at all.

It might be a good idea to practice some form of birth control no? These girls today want to bang like bunnys and when they get preggers,well no big deal....

Geez....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If enacted, the law would be a challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling which upheld a woman’s right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, usually at 22-24 weeks.

Republican Ohio House Speaker William Batchelder said he knows this bill will face a court challenge.

“We’re writing bills for courts,” he said.

Sad.

Lawmakers are expected to craft legislation in good faith that a given measure is Constitutional. Indeed, these and other lawmakers swore an oath the protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and that includes the right to privacy.

With the advent of ‘protest laws’ ushered in by the radical right, this Nation has entered a Dark Age of legislative terrorism.

As for ‘writing bills for courts,’ that effort is pointless: Griswold/Roe/Casey is considered settled law, and Justice Kennedy – who would be the deciding vote should this or any similar case come before the Court – would never allow such a law to stand, as it would be too restrictive and burdensome. Kennedy joined the majority in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) where the Court upheld the fundamental right to privacy.

 

[Cimerian]

What i do not understand is that an abortion by the mother is completely legal yet a speeder kills a fetus and they can be sent to jail for manslaughter? I think the real question to be answered is, is it a life or isn't it?

 

[Rozman]

What i do not understand is that an abortion by the mother is completely legal yet a speeder kills a fetus and they can be sent to jail for manslaughter? I think the real question to be answered is, is it a life or isn't it?

It's fine and it's no big deal to have thousands of abortions each day,no biggie....right Libs?

 

[jillian]

What i do not understand is that an abortion by the mother is completely legal yet a speeder kills a fetus and they can be sent to jail for manslaughter? I think the real question to be answered is, is it a life or isn't it?

It's fine and it's no big deal to have thousands of abortions each day,no biggie....right Libs?

it always strikes me funny how rightwingnuts shriek mindlessly about small government, losing their minds if they're told to wear a seatbelt; ranting and raving if they have to buy health insurance.

but they love government when it invades women's wombs.

you can barely make moral judgments for yourselves but think you should make them for others?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's fine and it's no big deal to have thousands of abortions each day,no biggie....right Libs?

This makes no sense whatsoever.

This has noting to do with ‘libs,’ there are jurists across the political spectrum who understand and respect the law. There are ‘libs’ who oppose abortion, yet also understand the rule of law and that merely banning abortion won’t end it. Indeed, those who advocate banning abortion as the only ‘remedy’ aren’t true abortion opponents at all.

 

[theHawk]

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.

The topic is about abortion and you are talking about "power and control" and "domestic violence". And now you are retracting and saying "I'm not defending abortion on demand!"

Why don't you stop the tapdancing and state what ARE valid reasons for abortion.

 

[Bern80]

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.

When it's thrown back that why I'm sure you think you didn't. But the reality is that if you insist that if government is going to be resposible for children being born who otherwise wouldn't be, then government must also be responsible for keeping those same children from being abused, you are in fact using potential abuse as a justification for having an abortion.

 

[Gadawg73]

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, what it "boils down to" is that poor women will be the only ones ever prosecuted if abortion was illegal. This has never been a "those that do not want abortion illegal are leftists and love abortion" argument, ever. I adamantly oppose abortion but am old enough to remember when it was illegal and how anyone with even a little bit of cash received one legally.
If you or anyone believes that doctors will not do what they always did with women of means stating in the medical reports "we had to abort for the health of the mother" then you folks are either very young or extremely naive and gullible. Or most likely, all 3.
NO law will ever stop a doctor from providing WHATEVER documentation any women that has the cash to obtain it to receive an abortion and never be prosecuted for it.
Real world. Please join us. We oppose abortion but know the realities of putting too much power into the hands of government to selectively prosecute only the poor women with no means to pay a doctor for a report of medical necessity.

 

[Bern80]

What i do not understand is that an abortion by the mother is completely legal yet a speeder kills a fetus and they can be sent to jail for manslaughter? I think the real question to be answered is, is it a life or isn't it?

It's fine and it's no big deal to have thousands of abortions each day,no biggie....right Libs?

it always strikes me funny how rightwingnuts shriek mindlessly about small government, losing their minds if they're told to wear a seatbelt; ranting and raving if they have to buy health insurance.

but they love government when it invades women's wombs.

you can barely make moral judgments for yourselves but think you should make them for others?

Get real Jillian. What the right has always stood for is individual liberty and government's proper authority to protect it. It isn't their fault that you don't consider children in the womb part of 'everyone'.