House Republicans submit HR586 - Human Life begins at fertilization - Polidicks

Make America a third world country again.

soon enough human life will begin at sperm creation enjoy your blue balls

[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;51716402]So why are a bunch of old men deciding what women should do with their bodies anyway. Is it a power thing?[/QUOTE] No, it's because they were elected to represent their constituency. You people forget a high number of women oppose abortions too - its not all misogynistic old white dudes. I personally support tighter restrictions on abortion cause imo it's murder at a certain point (also a lazy and irresponsible act regardless - learn to live with your actions/use a condom/birth control), but life at conception is a stupid argument with very little (if any) scientific basis.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51716429]Make America a third world country again.[/QUOTE] if they withdraw from nato that will technically become true [editline]23rd January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=The golden;51716442]It's exactly a power thing.[/QUOTE] why do some women support these bans? is it a masochist thing?

Honestly it's a religious/moral thing but I wouldn't be surprised if it's a power/control thing for some people who support this.

[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;51716402]So why are a bunch of old men deciding what women should do with their bodies anyway. Is it a power thing?[/QUOTE] They want as many people born as possible so that their government can leech them for every nickel and dime [sp]which is also why they loathe contraception in all forms[/sp]. They also do it to get support from the pious sect of supporters. It's also one of the starting steps to getting Saudi Arabia with a cross instead of a moon and stars. Forget the repercussions that comes from a society that can't relax via safe sex with a loved one or those that can't financially support children. Also improving and giving further support to the adoption and foster care institutions isn't going to happen because they don't give a shit about the quality of life to those they leech off of.

[QUOTE=Cap'nSpacePants;51716437]No, it's because they were elected to represent their constituency. You people forget a high number of women oppose abortions too - its not all misogynistic old white dudes. I personally support tighter restrictions on abortion cause imo it's murder at a certain point (also a lazy and irresponsible act regardless - learn to live with your actions/use a condom/birth control), but life at conception is a stupid argument with very little (if any) scientific basis.[/QUOTE] What if the condom breaks? What if a woman is raped? Are you going to tell those people to "learn to live with your actions"?

Eh. I've always been of the mind that, morally, Im opposed to it in most circumstances. However, I can't rightly say it should be someone elses decision on what to do with your body, whether they find it bad or no. Freedom of the individual should always come first. Granted, that gets complicated when dealing with multiple different opinions when an individual becomes "individual"

[QUOTE=Squad1993;51716338]I would argue and say that life begins once brain activity starts. Consciousness = life[/QUOTE] I've always considered it 'the point at which the fetus is sufficiently developed that it would stand a 75% or greater chance of thriving if born that day'.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51716524]What if the condom breaks? What if a woman is raped? Are you going to tell those people to "learn to live with your actions"?[/QUOTE] In regards to the condom breaking, yes. You live with it. Understand that having sex always leads to the possibility of impregnation. I'm not opposed to the woman in this case getting an abortion - as I said I don't believe its murder up until a certain point. Personally I think its a failure to hold yourself accountable if you get one outside of rape but I know that's not justification to outlaw it. Also notice how I said I support tighter restrictions, not banning of abortion. Rape is a case where I feel it is cruel and unusual to force a woman to carry her rapist's child.

Imo the point a abortion shouldn't be allowed is when the baby can survive on its own outside of the mothers body.

[QUOTE=Cap'nSpacePants;51716551]In regards to the condom breaking, yes. You live with it. Understand that having sex always leads to the possibility of impregnation. I'm not opposed to the woman in this case getting an abortion - as I said I don't believe its murder up until a certain point. Personally I think its a failure to hold yourself accountable if you get one outside of rape but I know that's not justification to outlaw it. Also notice how I said I support tighter restrictions, not banning of abortion. Rape is a case where I feel it is cruel and unusual to force a woman to carry her rapist's child.[/QUOTE] But why bother with tighter restrictions at all? Why not make it more easily accessible to those that need it while educating them on parenthood and the risks of both carrying a child and aborting it? Planned Parenthood, abortion rights, and accessable clinics are not in an acceptable condition and are even less so in any need of "restrictions".

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51716509]Didn't someone in a previous thread say this was a way to keep the poor and stupid, poor and stupid? Putting on my tin foil hat for a moment here, but it wouldn't be the unrealistic that's happened over the course of human history. The catholic church of ye olde days comes to mind. The more ignorant and mindless the population was, the more powerful the church became. They didn't [I]want[/I] to educate or help them. It was against their best interests. Replace catholic church with corporations.[/QUOTE] Every empire needs its slaves. The only difference now is making them think they aren't slaves.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51716559]If a child breaks his arm, should we let him "live with his actions" and not take them to a hospital? If someone is in debt, should we disallow them from declaring bankruptcy so they can live with their actions? If someone wrecks their car, should we make them fix it themselves so they can live with their mistake? When we have the means to ease the suffering of a human, why would you actively be against that?[/QUOTE] While I see your point here, stitching a wound or paying out insurance on a car is not comparable to preventing an actual human life from being born. In the eyes of many, (including many women) abortion is not a victimless action and to convince people otherwise one must acknowledge that fact.

[QUOTE=Bertie;51716376]I'm very much against what the Republicans are doing here and I support the right to abortion (not 9 month abortion though), but it's important to understand who you're talking to and what they believe in.[/QUOTE] 9 month abortion is called birth

[QUOTE=Levithan;51716672]9 month abortion is called birth[/QUOTE] my intention was late term abortions in general, not Donald's fantasy "ripped out of the womb on the final day" sort of abortion. I used a bad choice of words.

The vast majority of abortions are in the first trimester, late term abortions only happen when medically necessary, at the point when the health of the mother is affected.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51716559]If a child breaks his arm, should we let him "live with his actions" and not take them to a hospital? If someone is in debt, should we disallow them from declaring bankruptcy so they can live with their actions? If someone wrecks their car, should we make them fix it themselves so they can live with their mistake? When we have the means to ease the suffering of a human, why would you actively be against that?[/QUOTE] This is a false equivalency. Breaking an arm/injuring yourself, going into debt, and wrecking their car are much different from the creation of life. However more often than not those serve as learning experiences for people. The child who breaks his arm doing something may learn to be more careful or not to do that thing again. Also abortion is often an unnecessary medical procedure. The individual who goes into debt will learn and have to work their way out and learn how to prevent it from happening again or they will be destitute. They will also have to live with a history of having declared bankruptcy. The person who wrecks their car may, depending on the circumstances lose their license or face sky high insurance rates to correct their behavior, hopefully helping them become better drivers. And if they are unable to pay to fix their car, yes they will have to fix it themselves. Hell I'd recommend learning how to fix your own car. It often saves you a load of cash. Additionally, if you wreck your car its often beyond saving and you have to get a new one. [QUOTE=Duck M.;51716588]But why bother with tighter restrictions at all? Why not make it more easily accessible to those that need it while educating them on parenthood and the risks of both carrying a child and aborting it? Planned Parenthood, abortion rights, and accessable clinics are not in an acceptable condition and are even less so in any need of "restrictions".[/QUOTE] Tighter restrictions because in too many states it crosses that line (a heartbeat and/or human brain activity) that in my view is murder. I agree however that greater/better sex ed is needed country wide. Hell I was shocked to hear from friends and peers at college that they only ever learned about abstinence, it parts of Maryland no less! I must however disagree - you don't have a right to abortion. That's not an argument for banning it - outright banning it would be potentially disastrous (especially if we fail to improve Sex Ed), but to shout out loud about your late term abortion and how its your right to do that is immoral and legally wrong.

[QUOTE=Cap'nSpacePants;51716706]I must however disagree - you don't have a right to abortion. That's not an argument for banning it - outright banning it would be potentially disastrous (especially if we fail to improve Sex Ed), but to shout out loud about your late term abortion and how its your right to do that is immoral and legally wrong.[/QUOTE] Shit or get off the pot, dude. Are you for or against first, second, and third trimester abortions? Nobody out there is "shouting out loud" about their late term abortions.

[QUOTE=Cap'nSpacePants;51716706]...Also abortion is often an unnecessary medical procedure. [/QUOTE] Unnecessary in what sense? In the sense that many women get abortions without there being immediate medical threat caused by the pregnancy? Do you think most women use abortion as a form of birth control?

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;51716736]See, that's my problem.. it's where I'm half and half against and for abortion. I don't think it's anyone's right to kill another human being, or stop them from being able to have a chance at life (who knows who they will become?), but it's scary and very difficult for the mother to go through with having a child that was the result of sexual assault.. literally and figuratively carrying that burden for 9 months, only to have to put them up for adoption if they can't/don't want to take care of them.. but murdering that child because someone did you wrong? It just makes my skin crawl. Punish the rapist, but not the child. Idk where I stand on abortion, honestly[/QUOTE] Be pro choice, it's easy! Either the woman wants to have an abortion or she doesn't! She should be the only one to get a say in the matter!

[QUOTE=Snowmew;51716723]Shit or get off the pot, dude. Are you for or against first, second, and third trimester abortions? Nobody out there is "shouting out loud" about their late term abortions.[/QUOTE] Shit or get off the pot? I'm sorry? But if you insist - I'd have to say I'm only in favor of allowing early first term abortions. And yeah, sorry that last part was hyperbole. But it was a swipe at the "Shout Your Abortion" twitter trend and other like it that in efforts to reduce "slut shaming" and such against those who get abortions make it seem as if people who get them shouldn't feel any regret, personal shame, or accountability for what they have done.

I would imagine this would be ruled unconstitutional since it completely negates Roe v Wade?

[QUOTE=Cap'nSpacePants;51716756]Shit or get off the pot? I'm sorry? But if you insist - I'd have to say I'm only in favor of allowing early first term abortions. And yeah, sorry that last part was hyperbole. But it was a swipe at the "Shout Your Abortion" twitter trend and other like it that in efforts to reduce "slut shaming" and such against those who get abortions make it seem as if people who get them shouldn't feel any regret, personal shame, or accountability for what they have done.[/QUOTE] That is a moral concern, not a legal one. The government is not in the business of legislating morality. You don't get to force people to keep their abortions private just because it makes you feel uneasy that in the real world, people do actually have sex outside of perfect wedlock baby-planning conditions. [QUOTE=Raidyr;51716759]I would imagine this would be ruled unconstitutional since it completely negates Roe v Wade?[/QUOTE] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey"]Casey[/URL] is the controlling precedent, not Roe. The root question is viability outside the womb.

[QUOTE=The Vman;51716751]Unnecessary in what sense? In the sense that many women get abortions without there being immediate medical threat caused by the pregnancy? Do you think most women use abortion as a form of birth control?[/QUOTE] Too often I feel I'm seeing it being pushed as one. And yes, many do. The numbers may differ widely, but usually the majority of women getting abortions are not doing so for medical reasons. The number who do, to my understanding from researching sources on both sides, seem to indicate that around 5% or less of all women who get abortions do so due to risks to the mother's health.

[QUOTE=Cap'nSpacePants;51716800]Too often I feel I'm seeing it being pushed as one. And yes, many do. The numbers may differ widely, but usually the majority of women getting abortions are not doing so for medical reasons. The number who do, to my understanding from researching sources on both sides, seem to indicate that around 5% or less of all women who get abortions do so due to risks to the mother's health.[/QUOTE] Would you accept, then, that abortion should only be legal for medical reasons? If so, it invites the question, which reasons? Discomfort? Hospitalization? Permanent appearance changes? Serious injury? Death? What percentage chance of these maladies meets your standards? What if the injured party is the baby, not the mother? What if it is both? These are all questions you need to address if you want to have a medical exception, and ultimately, they are all answered entirely arbitrarily and have essentially no basis in medicine or law.

[QUOTE=Snowmew;51716770]That is a moral concern, not a legal one. The government is not in the business of legislating morality. You don't get to force people to keep their abortions private just because it makes you feel uneasy that in the real world, people do actually have sex outside of perfect wedlock baby-planning conditions. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey"]Casey[/URL] is the controlling precedent, not Roe. The root question is viability outside the womb.[/QUOTE] Jesus, I was simply stating that I detest that sort of attitude, not the government should force to keep their abortions private. And yes, I understand people fuck besides trying to have kids. They should just recognize that -hey, maybe you still get kids even with birth control measures. I personally believe that its irresponsible to go and have an abortion, however you're right that's my morality not law. I believe however the government should allow some time frame for a woman to get an abortion despite my dislike of it.h [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51716789]That's like axing food stamps for millions because 1 person abuses it. Or calling all blacks stupid because you met one stupid black guy. Or punishing all children because 1 child misbehaved. The women who have abortions without "regret, personal shame, or accountability for what they have done" are so minimal.[/QUOTE] I would still argue you're making a false equivalency, but ok. sure.

[QUOTE=Snowmew;51716840]Would you accept, then, that abortion should only be legal for medical reasons? If so, it invites the question, which reasons? Discomfort? Hospitalization? Permanent appearance changes? Serious injury? Death? What percentage chance of these maladies meets your standards? What if the injured party is the baby, not the mother? What if it is both? These are all questions you need to address if you want to have a medical exception, and ultimately, they are all answered entirely arbitrarily and have essentially no basis in medicine or law.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but are you a doctor or other medical professional? Have you at least had nuanced discussions with one? I can tell you I have with a family member who works as a medical professional in a major city with poorer mothers and children, who has told me they too often see it being pushed as birth control.(inb4 blah blah blah anecdote bullshit) But yes I would argue the only factor would be death for the mother. Killing a child just because they might not survive is too close to eugenics, something we should never again allow for. Anything else is what I would consider an accepted risk when one has sex.

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;51716736]I don't think it's anyone's right to kill another human being, or stop them from being able to have a chance at life (who knows who they will become?),[/QUOTE] Ever had an ejaculation? That's a couple of million of chances at life. Who knows who sperm #342,245 could've been?

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51716509]Didn't someone in a previous thread say this was a way to keep the poor and stupid, poor and stupid? Putting on my tin foil hat for a moment here, but it wouldn't be the unrealistic that's happened over the course of human history. The catholic church of ye olde days comes to mind. The more ignorant and mindless the population was, the more powerful the church became. They didn't [I]want[/I] to educate or help them. It was against their best interests. Replace catholic church with corporations.[/QUOTE] Thing is, even the church wasn't this evil. They were a bastion of education and science before the plague, and got even better come the Renaissance. Most of the problems with education in that era comes from an incompetent and decadent nobility trying desperately to hold onto the things they felt they owned. This is much more in line with the 19th century political bosses that were in bed with the fledgling corporations that needed poor, stupid, and easily replaceable workers.