Approve of this, but needs to he sooner. Even doctors state life begins at conception. So why does it seem that when it comes to unborn babies, everyone forgets that fact that life beings at conception? Once you conceive its a new life for someone.
Hopefully the Supreme Court will attempt to strike it down once it passes then that causes the Texans to become pissed off and secede, making many other states follow.
You ignore the supreme Court where they don't have jurisdiction. The supreme Court does not make legislation, they offer court opinions. The doctrine of the lesser magistrate and the way our country is founded allows you to completely ignore any ruling the supreme Court could have on the subject.
How many states ignored federal drug laws for years? Quite a few. How much more important is this? Infinitely.
Correct. I always muscled with this. Like, if we ALL really believed that life began at conception, we would be actively taking part in fighting against the murder of innocent lives. Aka, our reaction should be and would be the same if we knew they were going around various playgrounds and wiping out children. But we're not. And deep down, I feel like we intellectually are very hopeful that life begins at conception, but our hearts only really bounce at the heartbeat.
But I agree. Small steps are better than no steps. I think a MAJORITY would be able to agree with this, vs a full cut and dry...especially considering the direction it's going in other areas (being able to abort after being born, etc.). Take it from their getting rid of 2A handbook.
Exactly, there’s no way we could’ve had men in women’s restrooms if they hadn’t slowly chipped away at our values. We have to use the same strategy on them.
Murder of an unborn baby is the ultimate abdication of personal responsibility .. and that's just the passive end. Margaret Sanger had active motives for abortion - genocide based on race.
It's really no surprise that abortion and Margaret Sanger are loved by lefties.
Good luck. There are multiple generations of women that believe that not only should they not be held responsible for their actions, but they should be allowed to commit murder if they want to to get out from under those actions. Or, in more cases than women like to admit, lie to the guy that she's on BC to trap him with child support payments when he doesn't want a relationship.
Responsibility needs to be a two way street and I'm tired of one half getting to set the rules, and even outright lie, with no consequences for them but always consequences for the man. It takes two to tango and women are the ones that spread their legs.
Honestly I would be fine with that but in the rare cases of rape where it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and the mother's life is in jeopardy or there are genetic risks that would affect quality of life abortion should be on the table. Provided it's funded by the people seeking one
There is already acknowledged medical difference between a life-threatening pregnancy situation and a viable one. It would be insanely simple to write in an exception for molar and ectopic pregnancies into any abortion law.
It’s also very rare for a pregnancy to become life-threatening, beyond situations like that, without medical intervention being possible for the mother. Things like gestational diabetes or preeclampsia are diagnosable and very treatable.
Rape is awful, but it’s not the child’s fault. Nor are genetic abnormalities. If you have a baby with a fatal trisomy or other situation where they can’t live outside the womb, that is a tragedy. But it’s also worth noting that shit like, say, a brain cyst, that shows up on a twenty week ultrasound might not be there by week thirty. And early genetic testing is insanely inaccurate. I think the risks of aborting actually healthy babies in those situations are far too great to allow.
Rape - the baby is put to death for the crime, but not the rapist?
Mother's life in jeopardy - In America how common is this really? Is this just a strawman at this point?
Genetic risks that would affect quality of life - where do you draw the line here? Who gets to decide what quality of life means? One parent thinks a child with Downs Syndrome is better of dead and another doesn't. What else earns a baby a death sentence? What if that becomes skin color or sex?
Rape - the baby is put to death for the crime, but not the rapist?
You think I believe a rapist shouldn't be put to death if it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Mother's life in jeopardy - In America how common is this really? Is this just a strawman at this point?
https://www.verywellfamily.com/what-do-statistics-look-like-for-ectopic-pregnancy-2371730
1 in every 50 pregnancies is an ectopic pregnancy so not statistically significant but still a reasonable consideration, but are you really going to advocate for the life of a baby but not a mother who does not have a viable pregnancy (there is no fetus or life in this type of pregnancy) and may potentially die as a result?
Genetic risks that would affect quality of life - where do you draw the line here? Who gets to decide what quality of life means? One parent thinks a child with Downs Syndrome is better of dead and another doesn't. What else earns a baby a death sentence? What if that becomes skin color or sex?
The freedom to make that decision should be left between the doctor and the mother/father of the child not the State. As such those decisions should come with the best evidence to deduce that if at all possible. Also you are highlighting a slippery slope. Wouldn't put it past the democrats to use skin color or sex but at the same time (for the time being) the argument is arbitrary because those are protected classes. It's not the same as someone who will basically be on the Country's dole for a genetic defect.
This is often true, but not always. Some women are raped and impregnated. Some children are sexually abused and impregnated. Some women use birth control and it fails (even IUD's can fail; every year there are babies born with the IUD stuck on their body somewhere.). Women & girls who are raped / abused may not want to tell their abortion provider the truth, so they just say they want the abortion just because. But if there is an exception for rape/abuse, then everyone who wants an abortion will claim that (ie, the lazy ones).
Im fine with heartbeat. While i know many will disagree. As the lack of heartbeat is generally considered dead, the gaining 9f a heartbeat should be considered life.
Ehh with pacemakers being common, including research on using them in fetuses with heart issues, that's not really the case. Brain activity is just as easy to detect nowadays, and is a more accurate measure.
You haven't thought this through. Who's going to be detecting the heartbeat? People with a monetary incentive to abort children. The power to find that heartbeat is completely in the hands of the technician and if you know anything about ultrasounds that technician can purposely adjust settings and angles so they don't detect a heartbeat.
You can't expect people that murder babies to be honest can you?
So don't allow the abortion clinics to conduct the test. Don't allow anyone that is connected to someone that works in the abortion clinic to conduct the test.
Make it so that if it's found the abortion clinics are trying to screw with things to keep their abortion numbers up you hammer them into the ground until they suffer a "later term abortion" themselves. Cuckservatives need to find their spine, and the abortion issue is probably the only one that will get them to make noise while still being able to sit on their fat asses.
You say conservative should have a spine but you're talking about incrementally allowing the murder of unborn children as long as a heartbeat can't be found. You're the cuck here. Neither one of those things is the solution.
I'm for 100% criminalization as murder from the moment of conception with the punishment being the death penalty. It's a human life and it needs to be treated that way otherwise legislation is disproportionate and can be appealed
Approve of this, but needs to he sooner. Even doctors state life begins at conception. So why does it seem that when it comes to unborn babies, everyone forgets that fact that life beings at conception? Once you conceive its a new life for someone.
Maybe if we take baby steps in one direction it'll workout better?
Hopefully the Supreme Court will attempt to strike it down once it passes then that causes the Texans to become pissed off and secede, making many other states follow.
Breakdown of what happens in Texas secedes
If we give Detroit to Canada, can Michigan join?
Hope Weld County goes with TX and WY. We want nothing to do with Denver.
You ignore the supreme Court where they don't have jurisdiction. The supreme Court does not make legislation, they offer court opinions. The doctrine of the lesser magistrate and the way our country is founded allows you to completely ignore any ruling the supreme Court could have on the subject.
How many states ignored federal drug laws for years? Quite a few. How much more important is this? Infinitely.
States don’t have to secede. Just declare independence, stop taking federal money, and stop paying federal taxes.
What's the difference between what you suggest and secession? A formal declaration? Don't say you're wrong, just don't see the difference.
That’s called secession dumb ass.
Correct. I always muscled with this. Like, if we ALL really believed that life began at conception, we would be actively taking part in fighting against the murder of innocent lives. Aka, our reaction should be and would be the same if we knew they were going around various playgrounds and wiping out children. But we're not. And deep down, I feel like we intellectually are very hopeful that life begins at conception, but our hearts only really bounce at the heartbeat.
But I agree. Small steps are better than no steps. I think a MAJORITY would be able to agree with this, vs a full cut and dry...especially considering the direction it's going in other areas (being able to abort after being born, etc.). Take it from their getting rid of 2A handbook.
Sorta like what the left did to make where we are now “acceptable”
Exactly, there’s no way we could’ve had men in women’s restrooms if they hadn’t slowly chipped away at our values. We have to use the same strategy on them.
"baby steps"
You couldn't resist the pun could you?
:)
Because scotus already unconstitutionally made abortion a right.
Convenience, and denial. Abortion is birth control for lazy people who won't use birth control, or do things to avoid pregnancy. Like abstinence.
Murder of an unborn baby is the ultimate abdication of personal responsibility .. and that's just the passive end. Margaret Sanger had active motives for abortion - genocide based on race.
It's really no surprise that abortion and Margaret Sanger are loved by lefties.
Good luck. There are multiple generations of women that believe that not only should they not be held responsible for their actions, but they should be allowed to commit murder if they want to to get out from under those actions. Or, in more cases than women like to admit, lie to the guy that she's on BC to trap him with child support payments when he doesn't want a relationship.
Responsibility needs to be a two way street and I'm tired of one half getting to set the rules, and even outright lie, with no consequences for them but always consequences for the man. It takes two to tango and women are the ones that spread their legs.
Well, we have the ultimate power: not having sex with a woman we don't want to have a child with.
Sadly, men who use power are a very small minority.
(I'm no angel, I had a pretty healthy sex live earlier in my life. But I see the errors of my ways back then. And luckily, go out unscathed.)
Honestly I would be fine with that but in the rare cases of rape where it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and the mother's life is in jeopardy or there are genetic risks that would affect quality of life abortion should be on the table. Provided it's funded by the people seeking one
There is already acknowledged medical difference between a life-threatening pregnancy situation and a viable one. It would be insanely simple to write in an exception for molar and ectopic pregnancies into any abortion law.
It’s also very rare for a pregnancy to become life-threatening, beyond situations like that, without medical intervention being possible for the mother. Things like gestational diabetes or preeclampsia are diagnosable and very treatable.
Rape is awful, but it’s not the child’s fault. Nor are genetic abnormalities. If you have a baby with a fatal trisomy or other situation where they can’t live outside the womb, that is a tragedy. But it’s also worth noting that shit like, say, a brain cyst, that shows up on a twenty week ultrasound might not be there by week thirty. And early genetic testing is insanely inaccurate. I think the risks of aborting actually healthy babies in those situations are far too great to allow.
Doctors can deliver the child early and give him/her a chance in the NICU.
Ding, ding! Winner.
I don't disagree at all. I dislike abortion, but it has a real medical basis for existing. But using it as birth control is repugnant.
Rape - the baby is put to death for the crime, but not the rapist?
Mother's life in jeopardy - In America how common is this really? Is this just a strawman at this point?
Genetic risks that would affect quality of life - where do you draw the line here? Who gets to decide what quality of life means? One parent thinks a child with Downs Syndrome is better of dead and another doesn't. What else earns a baby a death sentence? What if that becomes skin color or sex?
Rape - the baby is put to death for the crime, but not the rapist? You think I believe a rapist shouldn't be put to death if it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? Mother's life in jeopardy - In America how common is this really? Is this just a strawman at this point? https://www.verywellfamily.com/what-do-statistics-look-like-for-ectopic-pregnancy-2371730 1 in every 50 pregnancies is an ectopic pregnancy so not statistically significant but still a reasonable consideration, but are you really going to advocate for the life of a baby but not a mother who does not have a viable pregnancy (there is no fetus or life in this type of pregnancy) and may potentially die as a result? Genetic risks that would affect quality of life - where do you draw the line here? Who gets to decide what quality of life means? One parent thinks a child with Downs Syndrome is better of dead and another doesn't. What else earns a baby a death sentence? What if that becomes skin color or sex? The freedom to make that decision should be left between the doctor and the mother/father of the child not the State. As such those decisions should come with the best evidence to deduce that if at all possible. Also you are highlighting a slippery slope. Wouldn't put it past the democrats to use skin color or sex but at the same time (for the time being) the argument is arbitrary because those are protected classes. It's not the same as someone who will basically be on the Country's dole for a genetic defect.
This is often true, but not always. Some women are raped and impregnated. Some children are sexually abused and impregnated. Some women use birth control and it fails (even IUD's can fail; every year there are babies born with the IUD stuck on their body somewhere.). Women & girls who are raped / abused may not want to tell their abortion provider the truth, so they just say they want the abortion just because. But if there is an exception for rape/abuse, then everyone who wants an abortion will claim that (ie, the lazy ones).
Im fine with heartbeat. While i know many will disagree. As the lack of heartbeat is generally considered dead, the gaining 9f a heartbeat should be considered life.
Easy to follow, easy to argue, easy to detect.
Unique DNA within moments of conception
a human person
Ehh with pacemakers being common, including research on using them in fetuses with heart issues, that's not really the case. Brain activity is just as easy to detect nowadays, and is a more accurate measure.
Brain activity? Half of congress would be eligible for abortion!
Go on...
You haven't thought this through. Who's going to be detecting the heartbeat? People with a monetary incentive to abort children. The power to find that heartbeat is completely in the hands of the technician and if you know anything about ultrasounds that technician can purposely adjust settings and angles so they don't detect a heartbeat.
You can't expect people that murder babies to be honest can you?
So don't allow the abortion clinics to conduct the test. Don't allow anyone that is connected to someone that works in the abortion clinic to conduct the test.
Make it so that if it's found the abortion clinics are trying to screw with things to keep their abortion numbers up you hammer them into the ground until they suffer a "later term abortion" themselves. Cuckservatives need to find their spine, and the abortion issue is probably the only one that will get them to make noise while still being able to sit on their fat asses.
You say conservative should have a spine but you're talking about incrementally allowing the murder of unborn children as long as a heartbeat can't be found. You're the cuck here. Neither one of those things is the solution. I'm for 100% criminalization as murder from the moment of conception with the punishment being the death penalty. It's a human life and it needs to be treated that way otherwise legislation is disproportionate and can be appealed
www EndAbortionNow.com