Iowa set to ban abortions after six weeks

a reply to: Bone75

a pregnancy can be a danger to a women's health, and leave permanent damage to her body... without putting her life life in jeoperdy...
can cause blindness, can cause permanent permanent liver and kidney damage, ect...
if you wait around till it puts her life in jeopardy, then that isn't healthcare.

and speaking of little nine year old pregnant victims of rape, there was one in the news a few years back, there was a nice discussion about her on these boards. a little brazilian girl if I am remembering right, ended up carrying twins. you'd be surprised at how many of the pro-life crowd would have preferred that she be denied the abortion because well....
there was a slight possibility that she could have survived... they held that view even after it was pointed out to them that she had doctors and nurses saying that it would probably kill her!!!

the sob that decided it was such a great idea to put her into that situation was found and sent to jail. the catholic church though, didn't excommunicate him though, no, they excommunicated the doctors the nurses, and the mother of the girl, for fighting for the abortion for the girl that probably saved her life!!

content.time.com...

here in the states, tamesha means rushed to one of our catholic hospitals because she was miscarrying her baby. she was sent away twice even though there was no chance for the baby to be carried to term and she was in alot of pain. the third time, she returned not only in pain, but also with a fever, they again dismissed her and was preparing her discharge papers when she collapsed on the floor of the hospital and began delivering the baby, which died a few hours later. only when she was on their floor and delivering the baby, did the hospital admit her. after three trips to the hospital in a 48 hour period. they knew that the baby was doomed at the first visit. they let her condition deteriorate, sending her home, two times, in pain, knowing full well that infection could be the result of such an action. and even when the infection showed up, they were willing to send her away again...
www.theguardian.com...

another link...
www.thedailybeast.com...

I can come up with more stories if that ain't enough...

the stupid laws, and "religious beliefs" are preventing women from getting proper care now, to "protect" the life of unborn children that have no chance of survival! forgive me for not really taking much stock in the so called exemptions for "life of mother" or "health of mother" which, surprisingly, this law has them in it... often times, they neglect to add it. only to add it later, as if it's just a secondary thought, like gee, if we don't add this little bit, it will be shot down by the supreme court for sure!!
the simple fact is is that you cannot hold the rights of the unborn above the rights of the mother that is carrying it and they seem to not to be able to write laws that prevent that from happening, many times, in the most insane, illogical ways possible.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Nyiah

Your feelings have no bearing on anything outside your own control. Period. You can agree to that much, correct?

No I can't. I'm an American citizen with the right to vote... feelings and all... whether you like it or not.

Then you should be wise enough to not vote like that, or at all. That is oppressive, authoritarian voting when you vote to control others because of how you feel despite not having any direct impact from it. If something does not directly impact you, and/or has nothing to do with your life & how you live it (abortion, gay marriage being prime examples) then you have not one iota of business dictating the lives of others in such a deeply personal way. Emotive-based & religious-based views are between you & yourself, or you & god if you ascribe to that. Not to be pushed on others because you "feel strongly".

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Nyiah

Your feelings have no bearing on anything outside your own control. Period. You can agree to that much, correct?

No I can't. I'm an American citizen with the right to vote... feelings and all... whether you like it or not.

Then you should be wise enough to not vote like that, or at all. That is oppressive, authoritarian voting when you vote to control others because of how you feel despite not having any direct impact from it. If something does not directly impact you, and/or has nothing to do with your life & how you live it (abortion, gay marriage being prime examples) then you have not one iota of business dictating the lives of others in such a deeply personal way. Emotive-based & religious-based views are between you & yourself, or you & god if you ascribe to that. Not to be pushed on others because you "feel strongly".

Your feelings are noted. Write a law.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Bone75

A fetus is a group of cells with potential to become a LIVING human.

It is NOT a living human.

I can attest to that because I pullled my 4th month spontaneous aborted fetus out of the toilet.

It was NOT a LIVING CHILD.

Is this what your group of cells looked like? That must've been very traumatic.

I pulled my own 4 month spontaneous aborted fetus out of the toilet - - remember?

NO - it did not look ANYTHING like the picture you just posted.

It looked more like a pinkish bean. No characteristics what-so-ever.

Everyone of us could have been aborted by our hosts, and the hosts could have been aborted before they gave birth to us.

Life is sacred, to all of us. It is not ours to take away, whether that life is forming within our own bodies, or is independent of our bodies.

The beginning of human life is at conception, not at 6 weeks, or at 6 months. As I see it, anyway.

As for the government, they have no part in deciding anyone's life. It is our morals, our humanity, that must guide us, on the paths we take.

originally posted by: turbonium1
It is our morals, our humanity, that must guide us, on the paths we take.

Yes!

Mine was the welfare of my 2 LIVING CHILDREN.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Milkweed

So you'll be willing to help pick up the slack when more babies are put up for adoption?

So you'll be able to pull up your slacks and zipper, and practice self control.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Everyone of us could have been aborted by our hosts, and the hosts could have been aborted before they gave birth to us.

Life is sacred, to all of us. It is not ours to take away, whether that life is forming within our own bodies, or is independent of our bodies.

The beginning of human life is at conception, not at 6 weeks, or at 6 months. As I see it, anyway.

As for the government, they have no part in deciding anyone's life. It is our morals, our humanity, that must guide us, on the paths we take.

Yes, you are correct.
If the Mars lander found a single living cell on Mars, we would say," There's life on Mars."
But the hateful people on Earth see a human life at one cell and say differently.
Haters will hate.

a reply to: Bluntone22

20 weeks is more understandable since it's well into the pregnancy, but 6 weeks is essentially around the time most women find out they're even pregnant. Some don't find out until much later. False negatives are still likely at 6 weeks, and miscarriage is common (even when a woman had no idea it was anything but an exceptionally heavy period). You're not even at 6 weeks gestation at 6 weeks pregnant. The first two weeks, a woman hasn't even ovulated yet since the timeline goes back to the last period. The embryo has barely even implanted at 6 weeks.

Personal beliefs and objections aside, this is just more proof that the government should not be making decisions about our bodies when they don't even understand basic anatomy or biology. Are these the same idiots who think women can control our menstrual flow or use our minds to decide when we become pregnant without the use of birth control?

originally posted by: ChaoticOuroboros
a reply to: Bluntone22

20 weeks is more understandable since it's well into the pregnancy, but 6 weeks is essentially around the time most women find out they're even pregnant. Some don't find out until much later. False negatives are still likely at 6 weeks, and miscarriage is common (even when a woman had no idea it was anything but an exceptionally heavy period). You're not even at 6 weeks gestation at 6 weeks pregnant. The first two weeks, a woman hasn't even ovulated yet since the timeline goes back to the last period. The embryo has barely even implanted at 6 weeks.

Personal beliefs and objections aside, this is just more proof that the government should not be making decisions about our bodies when they don't even understand basic anatomy or biology. Are these the same idiots who think women can control our menstrual flow or use our minds to decide when we become pregnant without the use of birth control?

Don't worry, with this bill you can just say the pregnancy will cause you severe mental distress and qualify for an exemption.

It changes nothing.

a reply to: Bone75

no, I am pretty sure that it's more like you have to find a doctor, or maybe two, willing to say that it will cause severe mental distress.... with full knowledge that their decision may be scrutinized by some gov't agency appointed to regulate the abortions and make sure the law is being followed as it should be and with the power to impose whatever the penalty is for breaking the law.

Meh.

I'm pro life, yet I don't approve of measures like these.

I mean I'm also against alcohol addiction, but we all know how prohibition did....

Kinda funny how Republicans create the society in which more abortions would be performed, all while wanting to deny ladies their ability to abort.

How about taking real measures towards reducing abortions? Increasing welfare for pregnant woman and children would be a good start - I can't tell you how much I've appreciated the help I got with my wives pregnancy, delivery, etc - followed by WIC support after that. Now, because I'm not drowning in debt, I was able to open up my own business - tax rates show it'll take me two years to "be even" with the tax difference I'll be paying.

But no... Conservatives hate welfare more than they hate women, so I don't know what will happen here.

originally posted by: Violater1

originally posted by: turbonium1
Everyone of us could have been aborted by our hosts, and the hosts could have been aborted before they gave birth to us.

Life is sacred, to all of us. It is not ours to take away, whether that life is forming within our own bodies, or is independent of our bodies.

The beginning of human life is at conception, not at 6 weeks, or at 6 months. As I see it, anyway.

As for the government, they have no part in deciding anyone's life. It is our morals, our humanity, that must guide us, on the paths we take.

Yes, you are correct.
If the Mars lander found a single living cell on Mars, we would say," There's life on Mars."
But the hateful people on Earth see a human life at one cell and say differently.
Haters will hate.

You mean a living cell on Mars -- living independent of a host?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Bone75

no, I am pretty sure that it's more like you have to find a doctor, or maybe two, willing to say that it will cause severe mental distress.... with full knowledge that their decision may be scrutinized by some gov't agency appointed to regulate the abortions and make sure the law is being followed as it should be and with the power to impose whatever the penalty is for breaking the law.

Yeah you're probably right.

a reply to: Annee
even if they found lifeforms at about the same stage of development as our early human ancestors...
the greedy among us, who are usually the ones pulling the strings and making the decisions, wouldn't flinch on wiping out those lifeforms, claiming the planet as their own and harvesting the resources from it. sure they'd keep a small number of the indigenous lifeforms around.... for "study" but for the most part, any lifeforms that managed to get in the way of their goals would be wiped out... they could find the justification to do this and for the most part, the people would buy it..

just like enough people buy their justifications when it comes to bombing the children living in villages halfway around the globe... which, regardless of what they tell you, most often it's their greed that is the primary motivations most of the time!!

well, I dare say that the motivations that are driving women to abortions are based more on reality, better thought out, less selfish and greedy, and often times much similar to those of the masses the greedy and powerful con into supporting the destruction of entire villages and the deaths that go with them...
fear, protecting my way of life, protecting my life, protecting what is mine, protecting my family....

it's all fine an dandy, acceptable, when it comes to annihilating practically an entire tribe of native people and throwing the rest on unwanted barren lands to starve to death...
it's all fine when it comes to bombing the heck out of people...
it's all fine when they find the water of a large portion of a city is contaminated to just ignore the problem...

it's just that well, for some reason they think that women should be stronger than them, brave enough to risk death and bodily harm, willing to go into deep poverty, willing to see their families adversely affected....
while they are willing to mass murder thousands.... got, protect the one that the women might kill, that isn't born yet, hasn't any sense of consciousness for sure at six weeks, has no sense of pain... yes, they should be given a chance, heck we should have a chance... to see how miserable we can make this young ones life in the name or our greed, and preserve our way of life!!!

a reply to: Bone75

in poland, a women had a couple doctors attesting to the danger her pregnancy presented to her... there were exemptions in the laws that she should have fell under, but she was denied anyways. so she appealed, and it went through the court system... which in the end, was still denied... her doctors were right and now she is legally blind!! so she went and filed a suit in the european court system and won a nice, very big settlement!!

the little nine year old peruvian girl's case had to go through the court system.... again, whole team of doctors and nurses attesting to the dangers, while the religious right of the country (in this case catholics fought them)... I just ain't sure in this case if the judges decided that she had a right to the abortion, of if the doctors and nurses just said heck with this crap and just did it anyways and so the judges made the decision after the act...

another women in central america had her case fought through the courts while he liver and kidneys shut down.... she ended up having the baby, and is now permanently damaged...

el salvadore just released a whole mess of women who were imprisoned for committing the crime of having an abortion, only, for many of them, their only crime was having a miscarriage.

these are just some of the cases that we hear about, many go without notice.

I see no reason to believe that any exemptions that are placed in the laws here would be much different, and of course there will be harm done when you have lawyers and judges, who probably have very little background in medicine are deciding the medical care of patients!!

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: Bluntone22

Stupid, a woman's body doesn't belong to the state or the courts, it's her own body in which she is responsible to make her own decisions based on her own thoughts.

If authorities are allowed to continually keep stepping over the line, eventually there will be no more personal freedoms.

I'm not sure why so many people think a living baby is a part of the "woman's body". It's a separate person. You're the host.

It is not a "living baby" at 6 weeks, and the decision should still lie with the "host", not some bureaucrats who have suddenly developed some kind of wayward, misinformed conscience.

Really?
lets look at the law.

Say someone shoots a woman with a 6 week fetus in the belly.

even if both survive the shooter will be charged with attempted murder on BOTH THE MOTHER AND CHILD.

If the child dies (even at 6 weeks) the shooter will be charged WITH MURDER on the fetus.
if both die then BOTH INDEPENDENTLY will get the shooter charges of MURDER.

this isnt a hypothetical, but HAS HAPPENED multiple times.

But if the same mother chooses to have an ABORTION ON DEMAND (aka I want it out just because) it isnt murder.

So in one case its a person and another it isnt.

IMO you cant (logically and ethically) cant have it both ways

Either its not a child until born and any harm to it isnt murder, attempted murder ,ect or it is a child with same protections as any outside of the womb.

I find it in dark humor that those who are for abortion or "its a womans body" dont want to address this issue and just go to standard propaganda.

Scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

most pro choice groups didns't support that law, they saw the danger that is would be used just as you just used it...
a women was driving in NY and had an accident... yes, she was stupid, and yes, the accident was her fault.
she was pregnant and the accident caused her to lose the baby.

she wasn't found guilty of killing the passengers of the car she plowed into...
but she was found guilty of causing the miscarriage.. even spent some time in jail... eventually the convinction was overturned but by then, well, damage had been done...

another women, forgot where she was at, was on the phone arguing with her husband (or maybe it was boy friend). after he was satisfied that he upset her enough and had hung up, she headed down the stairs, lost her balance and fell down the stairs. it caused a miscarriage.
somehow, this turned into she didn't want the baby so much, that she threw herself down the stairs to cause the miscarriage. she spent time in jail, and was found guilty, the conviction was eventually overturned, not because they decided that it's insane to think that she would have done this, but rather, that it was proven that the baby's "age" wasn't what the doctors testified it was, and if she didn't want to have the baby, it would have been much easier and safer just to have an abortion!!!

there are by far more mothers in jail because they committed the crime of having a miscarriage because of this law and the laws that sprung from it than there are men who actually were found guilty of the crime this law was presented to address.
and, I would go even further... the boyfriend, who chose to have an argument with the women carrying his baby, who got her so upset, well, it's just as believable, if not more so, that he caused her blood pressure to spike, which caused her to get dizzy and lose her balance on the stairs, which caused the miscarriage and in fact, it was him who should have been prosecuted!!!

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Iowa already banned abortions after 20 weeks now republicans are trying to shorten the window again.

Still no word if the female governor will sign the bill.


"Iowa is set to become the first US state to ban abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, after lawmakers approved the most restrictive ban in the country. "

"The "heartbeat" bill, as it has come to be known, requires women to have an ultrasound to screen for a foetal heartbeat before they can receive an abortion. "

There are exceptions in the bill for rape, incest and the mothers health.


www.yahoo.com...


I'm not totally against certain restrictions on abortion but 6 weeks is way early.
They also need to include something making adoption easier for the likely increase in the birth rate.
This will only make it more difficult for women seeking abortions considering they can just leave the state to have the procedure done.

I'm not sure why the states keep going out of their way to invite court cases against them. This will go to court, be found unconstitutional and the state will be out a couple hundred grand in lawyer fees.

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: Bluntone22

Stupid, a woman's body doesn't belong to the state or the courts, it's her own body in which she is responsible to make her own decisions based on her own thoughts.

If authorities are allowed to continually keep stepping over the line, eventually there will be no more personal freedoms.

I'm not sure why so many people think a living baby is a part of the "woman's body". It's a separate person. You're the host.

It is not a "living baby" at 6 weeks, and the decision should still lie with the "host", not some bureaucrats who have suddenly developed some kind of wayward, misinformed conscience.

Say someone shoots a woman with a 6 week fetus in the belly.

There is no CHOICE involved here.

The fetus is taken from her by the actions of another.