Iowa approves "most restrictive abortion bill in the US"

Irish_Tom said:
And why is that?

The cells at conception have no heart beat, no brain function, no consciousness and couldn’t survive to acquire those things outside of the mother’s womb.

They may, under the right circumstances, end up as an individual but those cells are no more an individual at conception than the sperm and the egg that they originated from.
Click to expand...

A computer program starts running when you hit the "enter" key, not when you see the result.

The Biological program that will eventually result in a new and unique living, breathing Human being begins with conception..

I do not have strong views on abortion either way, Nor do I on Euthanasia. But I see no Moral difference between terminating a Downs foetus and suffocating a Downs baby.

If you are willing to kill the Downs foetus because it is Downs then you should be willing to kill the Baby too.

It is the hypocrisy over the debate that I find annoying. People kidding themselves that they are not really killing babys by pursuing the sophistry that because they are still very small and unformed they are not really alive.

If you want to find out is a 12 week foetus is alive or not, go and find a Woman who has been trying to get pregnant for some time but having managed to do so, has suffered a first trimester miscarriage.

Go and tell her that her Baby wasn't really alive and was just a lump of tissue.

Let me know what happened (Assuming that you are still alive!)
 
Orionaut said:
If you are willing to kill the Downs foetus because it is Downs then you should be willing to kill the Baby too.

It is the hypocrisy over the debate that I find annoying.
Click to expand...

I don't see why there is hypocrisy there tbh... especially with regards to very early stage abortions - comparing a bag of cells to a fully conscious baby is ridiculous

if you're male you've probably killed millions of sperm - does that mean you should be willing to kill a baby too?
 
dowie said:
I don't see why there is hypocrisy there tbh... especially with regards to very early stage abortions - comparing a bag of cells to a fully conscious baby is ridiculous

if you're male you've probably killed millions of sperm - does that mean you should be willing to kill a baby too?
Click to expand...


Que

But Sperm are only half the program. A foetus is a running program that, barring further issues, will result in a new person.

And plenty of cultures have accepted the pragmatic idea of killing "Unviable" babies, even ours.

It may well have been somewhat unofficial but even my Edwardian Grandmother referred tho the "Sink Test"

Severely malformed babies only really became an issue once it became common practice for births to be attended by medical professionals, and that really wasn't very long ago...!

Like I said, I do not have strong feelings either way, but at least I accept Abortion for what it is. Killing an unwanted child (For whatever reason)
 
Chris Wilson said:
There is no wall around the state of Iowa, hence women seeking a later termination can just go to a different state for it. Am I some kind of religious maniac who supports such laws? No, I am not, I am just stating a work around is straightforward, in fact I would favour automatic chemical sterilisation of all pre pubescent children, only to be reversed at over eighteen years of age after an IQ and a means test are passed ;)
Click to expand...

Do you reckon you would have passed that test? :D
 
Orionaut said:
[...]

Severely malformed babies only really became an issue once it became common practice for births to be attended by medical professionals, and that really wasn't very long ago...!

[...]
Click to expand...

Oh my god, are you serious? Did you even consider that these babies are malformed prior to being born, i.e when still in the womb and not as a result of assistance when being born?
 
Dunks said:
Oh my god, are you serious? Did you even consider that these babies are malformed prior to being born, i.e when still in the womb and not as a result of assistance when being born?
Click to expand...
I took it as meaning that they were allowed to die, to be honest. Might still elicit a similar response, of course :p
 
Orionaut said:
A computer program starts running when you hit the "enter" key, not when you see the result.

The Biological program that will eventually result in a new and unique living, breathing Human being begins with conception..

I do not have strong views on abortion either way, Nor do I on Euthanasia. But I see no Moral difference between terminating a Downs foetus and suffocating a Downs baby.

If you are willing to kill the Downs foetus because it is Downs then you should be willing to kill the Baby too.

It is the hypocrisy over the debate that I find annoying. People kidding themselves that they are not really killing babys by pursuing the sophistry that because they are still very small and unformed they are not really alive.

If you want to find out is a 12 week foetus is alive or not, go and find a Woman who has been trying to get pregnant for some time but having managed to do so, has suffered a first trimester miscarriage.

Go and tell her that her Baby wasn't really alive and was just a lump of tissue.

Let me know what happened (Assuming that you are still alive!)
Click to expand...
It isn't quite that straightforward.

I certainly don't dispute that a 12 week foetus is "alive" but you could argue that the egg has always been "alive" since the woman began ovulating.
Are you happy to be told what you can and cannot do with your own body? Why is there a need to give special rights to a foetus that cannot survive outside of the womb against the wishes of the woman carrying it?
 
enkoda said:
Lol.

The core issue here is women's rights and them effectively being told that a part of their body isn't theirs and that they are incapable of making rational decisions (ok, forget that last part :p). Having been through this emotional turmoil myself, not as a woman I'd like to stress, and having witnessed first hand the vile comments used by (some) pro-lifers I thought it was newsworthy. :(
Click to expand...
My dude, I was referring to jsmoke, renowned awful-opinion-haver and brain-fart-typist extraordinaire.
 
Dunks said:
Possibly :p
Click to expand...


Definitely!

The sink in question was the sink in the scullery (Cold unheated outhouse)

Sickly looking babies would be left in it overnight, Only if they were still alive in the morning would the doctor be called.

Remember, this was before the NHS, most poorer people would only seek medical care if there was absolutely no alternative. Birthing at home with only close relatives such as the woman's Mother present was routine.

Poor families simply could not afford to have sickly children with on going health issues.

And nobody batted an eye if a malformed baby was reported the next morning as being "Stillborn".

And yes, this was not much more than 100 years ago.

Do we live in a better world today? Perhaps, Perhaps not...:/
 
wolfie138 said:
if girls weren't such tramps and got pregnant in the first place this wouldn't be an issue.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's all the women's fault, it's not like they need men to impregnate them or anything!?

The label "misogynist" gets thrown around here a lot, but remembering previous posts of yours I really do believe you are one.
 
I'm of the opinion that both men and women have the right to be responsible individuals who can control their own actions. We seem to have devolved into a society where people act upon primitive animalistic instincts without any thought of consequences involved because they know the nanny state will come to the rescue, pat people on the shoulder and tell them they've done nothing wrong.
 
Orionaut said:
Definitely!

The sink in question was the sink in the scullery (Cold unheated outhouse)

Sickly looking babies would be left in it overnight, Only if they were still alive in the morning would the doctor be called.

Remember, this was before the NHS, most poorer people would only seek medical care if there was absolutely no alternative. Birthing at home with only close relatives such as the woman's Mother present was routine.

Poor families simply could not afford to have sickly children with on going health issues.

And nobody batted an eye if a malformed baby was reported the next morning as being "Stillborn".

And yes, this was not much more than 100 years ago.

Do we live in a better world today? Perhaps, Perhaps not...:/
Click to expand...
Well indeed.

On the one hand we have disabled children with access to state support and services, as well as technological assistance to live as full and complete a life as is attainable, where on the other we have disabled babies being left in cold outhouses to die.

Tough to know which is more desirable.
 
Orionaut said:
A computer program starts running when you hit the "enter" key, not when you see the result.

The Biological program that will eventually result in a new and unique living, breathing Human being begins with conception.

If you want to find out is a 12 week foetus is alive or not, go and find a Woman who has been trying to get pregnant for some time but having managed to do so, has suffered a first trimester miscarriage.

Go and tell her that her Baby wasn't really alive and was just a lump of tissue.

Let me know what happened (Assuming that you are still alive!)
Click to expand...

I have friends who have gone through five miscarriages, so I know the pain it can cause. :(

Note that I didn't say the embryo wasn't alive, I contested your view that "the only logical point to consider a new individual as having been "Created" is conception."

I can think of logical arguments that could be proposed for "the individual being created" at the following stages of development:
  • First heartbeat.
  • First brain activity.
  • The point at which the fetus could survive outside of the womb with life support.
  • The point at which the fetus could survive outside of the womb by itself but before the "normal" nine-month term.
  • Birth.
  • Self-reliance.
  • Adulthood.
  • Or, as Bill Hicks put it, "You're not a person until you're in my phone book".
Without wanting to argue semantics, a lot depends on your definition of "an individual".
 
Isn't there fairly conclusive proof the harder the Christian right push their agenda through law/policies, the higher teenage pregnancies go up in the affected areas?
 
doodah said:
Isn't there fairly conclusive proof the harder the Christian right push their agenda through law/policies, the higher teenage pregnancies go up in the affected areas?
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

There is also a lot of evidence that suggests that making legal abortions harder to get (even if you impose really harsh punishments on people who have, or perform them) it doesn't have a corresponding increase in births, or drop in sexual activity, it does however tend to have an increase in the number of women dying from various complications that could be caused by having unsafe abortions.

I've said it many, many times the only real difference between a lot of the hard right/Evangelical Christians who hate Muslims and the Hard line Muslims is the book they read and the fact that there (fortunately) aren't many/any states where the hardline extreme Christians run things despite how much the Republican party seems to be trying to change things in the U.S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom