• Iowa bans abortions after 6 weeks.
    47 replies, posted
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/02/607659343/iowa-fetal-heartbeat-bill-to-ban-abortions-after-6-weeks-poised-for-passage This is going to get crushed rather quickly, but the republicans will continue trying.
I'm not super-familiar with it, but doesn't this violate Roe vs Wade?
No, it's definitely going to get struck down, and, if they're feeling especially lucky, they could try to appeal it to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe. Which I doubt would happen, since the supreme court precedents tend to stick around for at least a couple decades, as the supreme court dislikes turning over recently established precedence. A failed attempt in the supreme court would probably keep abortion rights safe for a couple more decades, and there's a real possibility of justice Kennedy retiring, or Ginsburg dying in the near future, at which point they could realistically overturn Roe vs Wade, so it would be tactically dumb to appeal it until then. Though it takes time for cases to actually make their way to a hearing before the supreme court, so it's conceivable that if an opening happens in the near future, the time taken to appeal it would last long enough that the new conservative justice would be on the court by the time the hearing begins.
supreme court is that way >
6 weeks is literally too early to even detect a pregnancy in some cases, most don't even get noticed until week 8. This is straight up an attempt to ban abortion without calling it an abortion ban lol
A lot of people don't even know they're pregnant this early. Not to mention the time it takes to even set up the abortion and the hoops you have to jump through.
What are they even protecting at this point other than a Red Team win?
Got to appease their voter base.
14-16 weeks. That marks the point where most fetuses gain the ability to respond to external stimuli. Seems reasonable to me.
26 weeks
The external response doesn't mean perceptible pain or consciousness. Automatic response equivalent to applying pressure to a recently deceased body and seeing a physical reaction. One could make the claim pain reception can be noted around 21 weeks but it's difficult to know whether it's truly a pain response or just more extensive stimuli response. Third trimester is a good cutoff.
36~ weeks baby. https://youtu.be/HvnqU-1uDUU
That's basically my motive too. In an ideal world where everybody is super responsible, I wouldn't want there to be restrictions at all.
~22 weeks, the earlier the better. We just had a big discussion on this last week or something.
I feel like if a shitty individual was getting an abortion willy-nilly because they were reckless, they wouldn't wait that long anyway. If they are that flippant about it, it wouldn't take long to decide.
the way this is set up would make it illegal pretty much right at the earliest possible time you can detect a pregnancy, and even then you won't always get a positive at 6 weeks. 4 weeks is the minimum. also, what exactly does making a quick decision about something like that have to do with someone being reckless/flippant/shitty?
There is no evidence I'm aware of to support this. From what I know, the overwhelming majority of late term abortions are for health reasons (mother or fetus), and abuse victims.
another poor welfare queen and her endless babies whom they refuse to offer any aid to because she had unmarried sex. couldn't be anything else because normal people never ever have any reason to get an abortion...
My personal opinion is that it should be based on whether or not the fetus could survive being born at the instant the procedure is performed without excessive neo-natal care. IE: It's a viable baby. If it hasn't developed that far yet there's nothing human in there.
I meant to quote hoodedsniper. It is a little clearer with the context of their conversation. I'm not arguing for this law at all. He was just talking about a hypothetical person who gets abortions regularly because they didn't want to take precautions. In that hypothetical situation, it seems to me like it wouldn't be a super late term thing anyway.
I believe in bodily autonomy as a principle so a person can have a baby out of them at any point they want. That said, I do think if the fetus has a reasonable chance of viability at that point they should make reasonable attempt to save it and then adopt it out.
Before 18 years old.
land of the free* * results may vary
Aw, I was going to make that exact joke, you dick. Little shits. Put 'em in a sack and drown 'em in the river.
Why does it matter if the pregnant girl took precautions from an ethical standpoint? The economic aspect is obvious but I really don't dig the underlying logic. is abortion inherently bad and does the ok'ness of it work on a scale from victim to promiscuous? What are you guys trying to communicate with that hypothesis, because what i just typed up is all i can extrapolate from it...
At any point, up until you're in the middle of giving birth. The reason being is that anything can go wrong with a family. If the dad gets pulverized by a drunk driver, leaving three dead and no survivors, the family is going to be torn apart. The mother is going to lose her shit and be in no shape to raise a child, assuming she hasn't flat out snapped from the trauma of losing a loved one. Some might call it murder to "kill" a fetus at the point where it can respond to stimuli, but that's the mother's choice. Not some white-knight politician trying to say 'no, aborshun is a sin!!!" If you're -really- late into the pregnancy and can't viably abort the fetus, you could have a C-Section and place it up for adoption, or just let it carry to term and raise the child. Once again, that's the mother's choice, and nobody else's at that point.
Respectable position tbh. If you'd rather it be aborted then have a crap life tho why does that make them shitty? Doesn't that make you have the same morals they do?
Getting an abortion is a huge pain in the ass though, and it's way easier to just take some birth control. I know you said it's a small number of people, but I can't imagine more than a couple of individuals getting serial abortions for totally unprotected sex all the time.
are you sure that this population segment that you're talking about exists
This is actually a pretty interesting aspect of the whole abortion, parenthood, and legal aspect of this. As it currently stands, I don't think much can change, I think men should be viewed more evenly in divorce and custody battles, for sure though. If we had a system that was totally fair to women (I.E, they can get abortions for free, at any time they want, with minimal hassle) - then I think the parenthood and child support system should be totally different. If it was really like that (Easy abortion access), then I actually think the default position a man should be in - is that of no rights to the child at all, and consequently the father has no responsibility to provide child support either. I don't think a man should be forced to have a kid they don't want to - now obviously they can't force women to get abortion, so the only way we can legally and fairly handle that, is to have opt-in parenthood. Basically, if two expecting parents want to bring a kid into the world, then the father (and mother) must sign a document stating intent of parenthood, and that give the father legal parenthood the the eventual child. It also means if he decides to bail at any point (between signing, rearing the kid, etc) - then he must provide child support. It's a bit extreme, but I really don't think neither a man or woman should be forced to have a kid they don't want - and for the male side of the issue, the only real route is that they by-default have no responsibility, and henceforth no rights - until they declare intent of having that kid. Women have the choice of abortion, so it evens everything out.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.