New Iowa Law Restricts Abortion To Before Most Women Know They're Pregnant

[Rev. Rye]

Just as an example as to why it's not the cure-all Pro-lifers tend to think it is, not an absolute rule. The assumption is that adoption will be a better life for a baby than living in a home that can't handle it. The Berkowitz case is an example of why this is not always true. Yes, it is an extreme case, but it does undermine the Pro-life point. There may be some cases where absolutism works, but it simply cannot work for all cases. That was the whole point I've been trying to hammer throughout not only that post, but the entire thread. It's not "don't send your babies up for adoption because he could grow up to be a serial killer." It's that adoption is not the panacea many think it is.

[Minimalist]

And that your reasoning leads you to that conclusion is astounding. Frankly it’s not about not caring about the mother in need. It’s that purposefully taking a life for the reasons that are often given is wrong and takes priority over what poor choices a person may make.

And again, what fucking business is it of yours what choice another person makes?  Are you going to be up changing its shitty diapers?  Are you going to support it for the next 18 years?  How do you even know that the woman in question would be a fit mother? 

There are somewhere between 8-9 billion people on this planet.  There is no shortage.  No one gives a shit about your fucking bible or god and that seems to be the extent of your reasoning.

[Rev. Rye]

And that your reasoning leads you to that conclusion is astounding. Frankly it’s not about not caring about the mother in need. It’s that purposefully taking a life for the reasons that are often given is wrong and takes priority over what poor choices a person may make.

And again, what fucking business is it of yours what choice another person makes?  Are you going to be up changing its shitty diapers?  Are you going to support it for the next 18 years?  How do you even know that the woman in question would be a fit mother? 

There are somewhere between 8-9 billion people on this planet.  There is no shortage.  No one gives a shit about your fucking bible or god and that seems to be the extent of your reasoning.

Actually closer to 7 1/2 at the moment, but, given the rate at which the population has been increasing for decades now, it will likely reach 8 billion by about 2023, and 9 billion by 2035. And they're going to be eating up the world's nonrenewable resources, maybe before we find a viable use for renewable ones.

[chimp3]

Iowa abortion bill signed into law by Gov. Kim Reynolds
DES MOINES, Iowa -- Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a six-week abortion ban into law on Friday. It marks the strictest abortion regulation in the nation. It also sets the state up for a lengthy court fight. The Republican governor signed the bill in her formal office at the state Capitol.
Reynolds acknowledged the new law would likely be challenged in court, but said "this is bigger than just a law." As she signed the bill, protesters gathered outside her office chanted "my body, my choice!"
Reynolds issued a statement Friday saying "this is about life."
"I understand and anticipate that this will likely be challenged in court, and that courts may even put a hold on the law until it reaches the Supreme Court. However, this is bigger than just a law," she said in a statement.
Maggie DeWitte, who leads the group Iowans for Life, called Reynolds' move "historic."
"We couldn't be more pleased," DeWitte said. "She is following through on her pledge to the people of Iowa that she is 100 percent pro-life."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iowa-aborti...-reynolds/

Republicans claim to be fiscal conservatives but they love spending millions of tax dollars getting their point across.

[Rev. Rye]

Republicans claim to be fiscal conservatives but they love spending millions of tax dollars getting their point across.

Blatant hypocrisy about such things has been a hallmark of American conservativism since the 19th century at least. In the Antebellum era, the Southern Democrats (technically Democrats, but obviously conservative by the standards of the time, as Southern Democrats would be until Nixon discovered the Southern Strategy in 1968) were all in favour of state's rights, except on their big pet issue: slavery.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1851 said that Southern states could enlist Northern states in the search for fugitive slaves (who may or may not have actually been fugitives) whether the Northern states wanted to do so or not. And the South was pissed when they did not want to (to the extent that months after the Confederacy seceded from the Union, they STILL expected the North to enforce the act). In 1859, the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision stated that the divide between Slave and Free states could no longer exist, effectively, for the time being, abolishing abolitionism (at least as far as the Government's role in it). I'm fairly well-read in this area (I'm not a specialist, and I'm nowhere near a beast in that area as I am in the Third Reich, but quite a bit more informed than the average American of my generation), but I cannot find any evidence of Southern, slavery-loving Democrats decrying the basic aversion of their beloved states' rights that the court's decision represented.

[Ravenshire]

When you have to mid-represent the other side with such a bad false dichotomy, I think that is a major indication about your position.

Like you don't misrepresent the opposing position.

Look, RR. I don't think anyone here is trying to make abortion out in any way a good thing. I, personally, am appalled at the number of abortions occur in this country. We are, if not the highest, then among the highest in abortions per capita in the developed world. But, I also believe in the inviolable right to bodily autonomy. That right trumps your desire to enforce your brand of morality on others. Abortion is a tragedy, but it's her fucking body and her fucking choice. Judging by some of your comments in this thread, you're among those that believe there is no reason beyond threat of life to the mother to sanction abortion. Are you going to be the one to tell the 13-year old girl that she has to carry her rapists, or her father's or brother's, baby because her "emotional distress" isn't important enough?

As well it would be stipulated that emotional distress, does not constitute an immediate medical danger, which constitutes fetal homicide.

(emphasis is mine)
If you're truly as cold hearted as this stance make you appear, I hope to never meet you in real life and I hope you never find yourself in a position where you can enact laws.

Yes, abortion is a tragedy. But not as great a tragedy as the suffering that would come from the draconian laws you seem to support. I'll say it again. Her body, her choice, and her choice is none of your fucking business. Neither are her reasons. Whether it's not being financially secure enough for a kid, not being emotionally ready, health concerns, rape, incest or just plain birth control failure, they're her reasons and are none of your fucking business. She's making what may be the toughest, most gut wrenching decision she'll likely ever make in her life and you want to legislate it.

You want to stop abortions? Maybe you should write your congressman and state representative and tell them to make certain that every school in the country be required to teach comprehensive sexual education, to include the on demand distribution of non-prescription prophylactics. Perhaps you could volunteer to help teach that. Maybe donate to researchers who are looking for better birth control, for men and women, because as long as people can have sex without a 100% method of preventing pregnancies, there are going to continue to be unwanted pregnancies.

I abhor abortion. But, I also recognize it's necessity in reducing the overall harm in our society and illegalizing it would increase, not decrease, that level of harm.

You can go back to slinging emotionally charged bullshit like "baby murder" now, but I hope I've at least given you food for thought

[Amarok]

When you have to mid-represent the other side with such a bad false dichotomy, I think that is a major indication about your position.

Were not misrepresenting shit . Were simply not falling for talking points . Your sides actions speaks louder than words .

[brewer]

Lets go back to the good old days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-induced_abortion

And in the current climate it appears that we are headed that way (at least in 2016): https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/opini...rtion.html

[RoadRunner79]

I have to admit, that I don’t understand the liberal logic of this is bad, but we can’t stop it, so let’s legalize it. I heard of such things recently with human sex trafficking.

[LadyForCamus]

I think that it is difficult to justify the killing of a preborn baby based on less harm as stated above. Given that a successful abortion results in the harm (specifically death) of a human being. This is the intended result. (Not exactly fitting under the Hippocratic oath.  I’m assuming, that you are not trying to indicate that every legal abortion would result outcomes as you described above, if they where made illegal. While I think that it is difficult to calculate, I also think it’s difficult to say that less harm is done with legalized homicide.

How about, we educate people. Teach of the risks of doing a alley way abortion.  Give them
support, and do every thing possible to discourage the on demand killing of these human beings. Would you agree to that?

This one I can actually get behind. I would still discourage making it illegal until we actually get to the point where abortions are really rare, which I honestly doubt will actually happen. The only way we can reduce abortions is by reducing the demand, and reaching a point where abortion is rare enough to justify its illegality may actually be impossible.

Also, given that the vast majority of abortions happen before the fetus has even developed the capacity to even be properly sensate (roughly around the third trimester, where abortions become extremely rare and almost always happen due to severe problems), it's really not that hard to use a less harm justification.

---

Looks pretty human to me.

And, like Roadrunner, you chose to use an image of one at a stage when abortions become very rare. And, for the record, it's not exactly inherently parasitic, but it can certainly become parasitic in the wrong circumstances. Seriously, look at an acorn, call it an oak tree, and then tell me that a fetus still counts as a full-blown person.

My point with this photo is that as much as I hate when pro-lifers use inflammatory appeals to emotion like ‘ripping unborn babies apart’, it’s equally as annoying when pro-choicers use phrases like, ‘parasite’ in an attempt to dehumanize what is biologically and genetically human.