The Ohio legislature passed a bill today that would outlaw abortion after a heartbeat is detectable -- around 6 weeks -- with no exception for rape or incest. Governor Kasich has 10 days to decide whether to sign it into law. Abortion played a very small role in the 2016 election. If Republican legislatures implement new restrictions, and if the Supreme Court upholds them, the Democrats will probably make a major issue of this in the 2018 and 2020 elections. They will probably get more traction with this than they are currently getting with the race-division BS.
Republicans are falling into the social agenda trap that resulted in the Democrats getting pushed out of D.C. It's a cycle. Everyone always overestimates their "mandate".
I still struggle trying to understand how or in what universe the killing of an unborn child can be deemed legal, ethical, moral ... or right. Do we just convince ourselves the unborn isn't human until it's born??? Is its humanity dependent upon the desire of the parent to birth it??? ... then ... how does someone who thinks it IS OK to take the life of an unborn child can put a stick in the ground and say ... "OK, from this point forward, no go, but before that ... yup, terminate that pregnancy." At least #HisSilentinBengHazi was pure in her fouled-up thinking; supporting partial birth ... because to her, if the baby isn't "fully born," abortion is quite acceptable. This really should be beyond party toad nonsense ... but apparently the sanctity of innocent human life just doesn't have the same value to some.
... being associated with a "Crisis Pregnancy Outfit" here locally ... I actually HAVE been presented with the dilemmas ... it's NOT easy. I get that. Even "wanted" pregnancies present challenge. There is room for the law to allow but honor the sanctity of innocent human life at the same time. However at the end of the discussion ... the result is killing an unborn child for convenience (in the VAAAST majority of the cases) is what we're endorsing with our law. It saddens me to think we've conditioned ourselves to think this is in anyway acceptable. Associated with this is the sexual disease rates ... and Killeen rates up there with the worst of 'em. Why is that? I have an accurate idea ... and it boils down to individuals' CHOICE. The left is all about CHOICE until the results are difficult to accept ... until the results are anything but an entitlement from one to another in the name of "caring." Who cared about that unborn child enough to save its life? Who cared enough to say ... we recognize and honor the sanctity of innocent human life enough to make it a felony to take the life of an unborn out of convenience. We understand the choice to kill an unborn will still be made, but our law will not respect that choice.
I understand and respect your position, but I don't agree with it. The problem starts with how you phrase the issue -- "how does someone who thinks it IS OKAY to take the life of an unborn child . . ." Only the most ardent of pro-choicers think it is acceptable to take the life of an "unborn child". The problem is defining when a blob of cells becomes an "unborn child". You clearly find the left's "sticks in the ground" arbitrary, but then you put your own, equally arbitrary stick in the ground and build an argument on it.
NJ ... I read that two very different ways ... You understand where I am on this issue ... or you understand how killing an unborn child for convenience can be proper? Thanks.
So as I understand it a birth control pill could potentially keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. Is that immoral? Honestly, I draw the line pretty much as potentially viable outside the womb for the state to intercede on behalf of the unborn. I do not believe rhythm or abstinence to be the only moral forms of birth control.
OK ... thanks for updating your post. But I did NOT put an arbitrary stick in the ground. I recognized that's the proposal in the OP and for many of the so-called "pro-choice" proponents who DO happen to recognize the error in making partial birth abortion legal. I recognize there are some truly difficult situations on which decisions must be made and really can only be made by the counsel of an accredited doctor, patient, and family ... at any given point (not restricted to a date in the pregnancy) ... these are statistically exceedingly rare and do not comprise a substantial problem for the law if we'd actually address the issue. What is interesting to me is your effort to redirect what I've said rather than address the fact the law CAN allow for these relatively rare and exceedingly difficult circumstances while upholding what should be a defense of innocent life, including that of the unborn. I guess we could discuss the point at which ... but certainly conception is a viable option. Methods to prevent conception? I know what the Catholic Church has said, and I know that in spite of those opposed efforts, women get pregnant. I know it's a little "un-hyp," but let's not attempt to take from the Creator ... nothing happens without His knowledge nor His authority. Bottom line is abortion should be rare, yet we made it the rally point which has terminated more lives just here in the States, than the likes of Stalin, and Genghis Kahn ... combined. What a shameful testimony. Wanna be ashamed of America? THAT is a point about which to be ashamed. (ED: Hitler's add increased the sum to exceed that of Roe V Wade killings ... so ... I stand corrected and now you abortion-on-demand folks can sleep well knowing it's only as now revised)
Sorry. I initially typed "I understand" as the first two words in what was going to be a longer post. I accidentally put it in all caps, and tried to change that but accidentally hit "Post Reply" instead. Not sure how it happened ... lol.
This is where "optics" has really damaged the discussion about abortion in this country. During Bill Clinton's time, the phrase was "safe, legal and rare." The Democratic party pulled that language and now just says "safe and legal" - and it's an honest change, because if there's nothing immoral about abortion, then why should it be rare? And more to the point, those on the left side of the party would argue that in many cases it is the "right" solution, and it should never be discouraged (and in some cases maybe even encouraged.) The desire has been to create a climate where no one should ever feel embarrassed or guilty about aborting a child. This is where moderates have really failed, in my opinion. I would love to hear someone stand up and say "I understand that abortion is the law of the land, and I'm not going to debate that question. But I will say I believe it's a horrible act. It is something that should be done only when a woman's life is in danger, and I find the concept of abortion for any other reason to be abhorrent." The fact that Obama/Clinton/Etc. continue to resist bans on partial birth abortion (regardless of what reasons they might claim) and refuse to acknowledge anything about the issue other than that "it's a difficult choice" is a problem. Ultimately, when you don't think there's anything inherently wrong or damaging about it, there will be no limits on when you allow it.
I'm curious where you put the "few weeks"? I subscribe to Crockett's approach of "viable outside the womb" which science tells us is generally in the range of 22-26 weeks. This proposal seems to move the sticks to ~6 weeks which means that an expecting mother may not even have a chance to realize she's pregnant and be forced to move forward with the pregnancy.
That's okay folks. The Supreme Court of The United States will undoubtably take a look at all this again...
Thus the purpose of this bill. I'm sure they expected it to be challenged and pushed to the new conservative Supreme Court.
I think we agree on how the issue should be framed. Interruption of the pregnancy process should be freely allowed before the point where life begins, and should be prohibited beyond that point except in "rare and exceedingly difficult circumstances", as you say. In fact, I think most people, on both sides, agree with this framing of the issue. The difficulty is defining where life begins. Your argument hinges on an unquestioned acceptance that a fetus is a life, i.e. that life begins at conception or some point fairly soon thereafter (your "stick in the sand"). I don't share that unquestioned acceptance. In fact, I don't think there is any single moment in time where life suddenly pops into existence. Instead, I think the non-life / life boundary is fuzzy, with life gradually emerging over an extended period of time. Thus, I think the immorality of abortion slowly but surely increases as a pregnancy progresses, such that legal restrictions should slowly but surely become stricter as pregnancies proceed. I fully understand that my viewpoint is arbitrary, but I think that is unavoidable. All viewpoints on this issue are arbitrary, and there is nothing we can do about that.
NJ, a few points on this. First, as a pro-lifer, I support this legislation on the merits. I think we should be banning abortion in most scenarios (though only at the state level). Second, I think Kasich is sure to sign it into law. He is going to have the Trumpsters to reckon with already, and if he enrages pro-lifers, I think that'll be enough to ruin his career. He'd get dumped in the primary, and obviously he's far too conservative to switch parties. Furthermore, he has always been pro-life, so I think he likely supports the bill as a matter of principle. Third, though I favor the bill on the merits and generally view abortion the same way Prodigal and ShAArk do, I don't think this bill is a smart political strategy but not for the reason you seem to think. Democrats will surely try to make this a "war on women" issue for obvious reasons, but I'm not sure that'll work very well. Let's keep in mind that we're in a post-fact/post-reality political climate. Objective thought doesn't drive people's opinions. Catchy political narratives and slogans do. If you support the bill, you can say, "my opponent favors killing innocent unborn children who have live, beating hearts." That's a powerful and compelling narrative that's going to be tough to overcome by tossing a stale, overused rap like "war on women" around. I think it was easier to do that in the face of goofy proposals like the transvaginal ultrasound requirement. That was never a winning issue - relied on subjective shaming and emotions to justify stopping an abortion rather than an objective sign of life like the Ohio bill. The problem with the bill is that it's premature. Let's be honest. The Ohio bill is in pretty stark conflict with Roe. The only judges who are going to go along with it are those who think the abortion doesn't even implicate the Constitution. Justice Kennedy isn't in that camp. Frankly, he's pretty much in your camp - believes in abortion rights but will allow significant restrictions. The current Court would strike it down 5-3. If Trump replaces Scalia with another Scalia, that only gets them to 5-4. Another vacancy (probably Ginsburg, Kennedy, or Breyer) would have to come up for the Ohio law to have a chance. I think it would make a lot more sense to wait and bring it up when we have a Court that might actually be receptive to it.
I don't know that I have a specific target moment in time, and I think we sometimes get ourselves into trouble by trying to define it in that way. The most logical ethical point in time to me is "when the mother realizes she's pregnant." Since the law won't know before she does, then I'm not sure whether there's another relevant guidepost. I will say this: I think "viable outside the womb" is an extremely dangerous proposition. What does it mean? What is "viable"? is the guy who's on a respirator "viable"? He couldn't survive without direct medical intervention. So is that the litmus test? Would the term "viable" basically mean: "the point at which the mother could remove the child and it still be able to survive?" I don't see any connection between the infant's viability and the right to terminate it other than that it's more convenient and easier to justify all the way around. So I'm not sure why viability should even enter into the discussion. Why should politicians, activists, and abortion clinics be allowed to make that decision when they have a vested interest in finding the last possible instance in which they can kill the child When we try to parse it out by dates and time frames, all we're doing is looking for excuses.
Yes, that's the definition I would use. Then you are applying science to the decision. From any other angle value and faith-based influences start to have a greater impact. We'll never align on those. A focus on viability allows us to center the discussion to a handful of weeks. I'd add churches to that list which is why I'd advocate science to address the question. We know there is a certain point in the pregnancy that if the baby is birthed that it is developmentally incapable of surviving. That figure is 22-26 weeks based on current science. If an infant is born before that their odds of survival fall off the cliff.
Not to hijack you thread NJ, but we might as well go the really message board entertaining end-game question: Will Pro-Choice states secede from the Union after Trump gets a few more judges on the SCOTUS and overturns Roe v. Wade? I know it's a ridiculous question... the folks in those states don't have any guns, but work with me here!
Why would they secede? The Constitution doesn't prevent abortion. The states can enact their own abortion laws.
It's only difficult for the idea that abortion should be legal and offered to its fullest potential. Life begins when it begins ... if the fetus is left to its natural conclusion, it becomes an air-breathing human. The science of the pregnancy stipulates the baby has its own DNA from the outset. So, conception is not arbitrary, but the point at which CHOICE has been made (in the aggregate) ... REGRET of that choice leads to all this distraction from the bottom line ... do we or do we not hold and defend the sanctity of innocent human life? As Prodigal mentioned ... IN ADDITION ... to disregarding this basic issue is the problem of slippery slope as well. This is why I struggle to understand the position which would allow for abortion on demand. It's illogical and fails to meet a minimum standard of civility ... all so we don't have to be inconvenienced.
It was joke, but I bet some kind of exit hashtag will trend after the decision to overturn Roe V Wade.
It may have been a joke, but people are idiots. Many think that overturning Roe would mean the criminalization if abortion throughout the country (a myth the media and abortion rights activists pretty much never correct), so plenty of low-information, radical feminists who have never read Roe would lose their minds if it got overturned. I could see them calling for secession like some in California are. Frankly, I think it would be somewhat anticlimactic. Sure, you'd see some red states ban it, and the media would make a big deal out of it. However, when the ignorant people eventually realize that the world didn't come to an end and that you can still have an abortion in many states, the **** storm of idiocy will die down. They might even eventually realize that they were actually the ones forcing their views on people, not the other way around, but I won't hold my breath on that.
If we use the "viable outside the womb" benchmark universally, we could greatly reduce our healthcare costs and insurance premiums, and finally make Obamacare viable outside the womb. We could let heart attack, cancer, motor vehicle accident, violent crime, natural disaster, and many other victims of bad events die without providing healthcare since many of these victims are not "viable outside the womb" without help. Think of the cost savings! Heck, let's just let newborns, young children, old people, and liberals dependent on the government tit shrivel-up and die since they are not viable outside the womb without help. The fact that they could be viable with a little help should not matter, right? To help these victims die, I suggest we take a large vacuum and just pull the victim's bodies apart when they become unviable.
Iatrogenic -- you are describing the circumstance of being independently viable. By viable outside the womb, I'm talking about preemies with a real shot at a normal life. On the other stuff you mentioned, I don't want to force everyone to take every possible life-extending measure, though I certainly don't mind heroic life-saving methods for those that want it and can afford it. If I get run over on my bike or suffer a heart attack, I want to recover and live and I want that option for others. There are some quality of life measures that make life on this plane worthwhile and if they are not present my family knows how to observe and honor a DNR order. If everyone did the same we'd avoid a lot of very expensive medical care that serves mainly to extend suffering and drain the assets from families/Medicare/Medicaid and turn it over to the medical/industrial establishment. By the way, in my extended family there have been a number of inconvenient pregnancies and we're delighted that so far all have resulted in live births and well-loved children. I'm anti-abortion in my circle of influence, but pro-choice concerning government control of the womb of my daughters, nieces and strangers ... up until a certain point in development of a fetus. I have no issues with pills, prophylactics and morning after pills.
Crockett ... I applaud your closing even if I don't completely agree. I share some of what you've mentioned WRT unplanned pregnancies in the extended family. In each case, my relative married and has pressed-on with their "shotgun" spouse to raise complete/intact/loving families. They didn't let that choice define them, but they honored their responsibility. The Govt's responsibility lies in the reflection of our values in the law. We prohibit a great many things through the law, and even with regard to one's own body ... so that's a non-starter in the pro-abortion crowd's argument. I personally consider life being conception ... for me that's the starting point for that miracle to happen and to become. Therefore, if I understand "morning after" correctly, I'm not a supporter of that. The OTHER decision should have been made the night before. I DO support holding biological fathers to account and would support public funds' being spent for those who cannot obtain their own DNA testing to make that determination ... no finger pointing. Facts, scientifically derived. As I mentioned ... there are difficult circumstances ... and there are inconvenient circumstances. We must be CLEAR on the difference. We must be wise in order to discern. On a case-by-case, the former could result in an abortion. For the latter? there must be another direction ... for the baby's sake and for that of our own soul.
You talk about things that, if allowed to run to their natural conclusion, will lead to life. You mention that cells have DNA, which many call the building blocks of life. You talk about people who do things that, iyho, constitute a choice to create life. Pardon me for saying that it is arbitrary to conflate these precursors to life with actual, extant life. I know that you have a deeply held belief that life begins at conception, and I respect your right to formulate a policy position based on that deeply held belief. But that doesn't make it any less arbitrary.
Yeah ... no. That's NOT what I said. If the life is allowed to continue ... it becomes .... not that the fetus is NOT A LIFE (yet) My position is quite objective ... it simply doesn't allow for the intentional killing of an innocent human life.
