Iowa Congressman Steven King Abortion Bill

[Fincayra]

http://usuncut.com/politics/steve-king-obamacare-dying/

How much Mr King cares about human life.

[Zyster]

Fetuses are not human beings? Scientific ignorance is amazing.

Science defines it as a human. You don't need to tell me how ignorant you are. It's already obvious.


[Infracted]

[Wyrt]

It is in fact a human. Unless you are stating this isn't a characteristic that you had. I don't know why I just said that, of course you will say that it isn't.

No, I have not always been a human. At one point I was a sperm and an egg in 2 separate locations. And then I was a fetus and then I was born. I also didn't exist at one point, so I wasn't a human then either.

[kail]

Liberals want to protect human rights. Liberals mad when laws passed to protect human rights and want to take away human rights. Make up your minds.

True, this law is taking away rights.

[Dug]

You would think some self-proclaimed intelligent being would know what defines a human.

Go ahead and take any basic biology course. Let us know what you learned when you come back from your time out

[Machismo]

As I was told by a conservative earlier, conservatives only care about authoritarianism and spreading religious beliefs. They do not care about personal freedoms, free markets, limited government, or the United States Constitution. Congressman King is an asshat.

[Paranoid Android]

Science defines it as a human. You don't need to tell me how ignorant you are. It's already obvious.


[Infracted]

There is no scientific proof of where human life begins. Thus the rights fall back onto the woman who may choose what she wants to do with her own body.

Edit: I guess this might fall on deaf ears.

[monkmastaeq]

Eh we celebrate birth as the babies age not conception , I'm for late term abortions

[Machismo]

I mean, the simplest argument is that the developing baby is also a person, and said person deserves to live. If you don't understand why anyone thinks this way; then why are you whining over something you know nothing about.

Than at what point do you give that fetus (person) rights? is it at conception? Is it when the fetus can survive outside the womb?

That's the issue that always arises, because then you open the door to all sorts of bullshit laws. One could then logically ban all alcohol consumption for women after sex, until that person can get a pregnancy test done. After all, we wouldn't want them to be harming the human fetus by consuming alcohol.

[Endus]

There is no scientific proof of where human life begins. Thus the rights fall back onto the woman who may choose what she wants to do with her own body.

The central issue with the "science" argument is that science can't tell you how life begins. That's abiogenesis, and pretty much all life emerged from a single instance of it, billions of years ago.

The reproduction of living organisms is not a beginning of life, it's a reproduction of that particular organism. In the specific case of humans, human gametes are created, and are alive, they meet and form a zygote, which is alive, which develops into a fetus, also alive, and so on. At no stage is anything "not-alive", and life never "begins", it just continues and reproduces.

It's just missing the point. This is a legal discussion, not a scientific one; science simply does not have any position on what defines "a human being", any more than science has a say on what defines "murder", or "a legally binding contract".

[Henako]

Then dont have sex that could lead to pregnancy if you cant live with the known consequences? Its all your choice.

This is a very bad argument, as we live in a world where that is no longer the case. We have the tools to deal with an unintended pregnancy.

[Machismo]

I mean, I don't particularly agree with the counter argument. I'm all for pro-choice.

I do understand, however, that there can be a logical debate about whether or not a fetus has the potential of being a person, and said potential holds value (however it is a moral argument, which I dislike). Though I personally think the potential of the child is far outweighed by the woman's choice, for reasons which I won't go into unless you are genuinely curious about a logical debate.

I'm all for logical debate. The issue with laying rights upon the unborn, is also any inherent responsibilities that come with it. On top of that, you then have conflicting freedoms existent within the framework of a single human body. Is the freedom of being more valuable thatn the freedom of action? If so, are such laws applied in a logical fashion. The last part is a resounding "no."

[Darsithis]

I mean, the simplest argument is that the developing baby is also a person, and said person deserves to live. If you don't understand why anyone thinks this way; then why are you whining over something you know nothing about.

Perhaps if we had a comprehensive social security net that would care for the thousands, nay, hundreds of thousands of children born into extreme poverty, drug-fractured families, or to abusive parents, we could say this.

The most frustrating thing about the whole abortion debate is the pro-life side that doesn't care what happens to the kids after they're born, they just care that they're born. What does it matter if the child is deformed from prenatal drug use? What does it matter if the parents are literally unfit to have a child in the first place? Who cares what kind of environment they're going to be born in, just make sure it happens.

I'd argue that someone who willingly ends a pregnancy to avoid bringing into the world a child they know they can't care for, a child that will probably end up in state care, recycled from place to place is more caring than the ones who have decided to make the choice for them.

[HumbleDuck]

We can argue if a fetus ( or a rock for that matter) holds the same rights as a human being, but heartbeat has nothing to do with it.

[Paranoid Android]

Perhaps if we had a comprehensive social security net that would care for the thousands, nay, hundreds of thousands of children born into extreme poverty, drug-fractured families, or to abusive parents, we could say this.

The most frustrating thing about the whole abortion debate is the pro-life side that doesn't care what happens to the kids after they're born, they just care that they're born. What does it matter if the child is deformed from prenatal drug use? What does it matter if the parents are literally unfit to have a child in the first place? Who cares what kind of environment they're going to be born in, just make sure it happens.

I'd argue that someone who willingly ends a pregnancy to avoid bringing into the world a child they know they can't care for, a child that will probably end up in state care, recycled from place to place is more caring than the ones who have decided to make the choice for them.

My two points are always: 1) Why do you care what another person does with their body/life. 2)For the Pro-Life stance. Yes! They sure seem not care after the child is born.

Both times they contradict their views, opinions and beliefs on conservatism.

[Thepersona]

It is in fact a human. Unless you are stating this isn't a characteristic that you had. I don't know why I just said that, of course you will say that it isn't.

A foetus is a human in the same way that blood spilled on the floor, a cancer, or a part of an organ that is removed are humans. They re human cells that are alive, but cannot survive on their own. The only difference is that a cygote or foetus can develop into a human, if certain conditions are met. But the potentiality debate is not a biology one.
Also what clearly defines a human as it is is the brain activity, not the heartbeat. A brain dead corpse can be kept with the heart beating for weeks... but it is still dead

[Katchii]

I see a lot of uses of the word God in that write-up. If that's the premise of the bill, it has no place in this system where there's a separation of church and state.

[Mister Cheese]

Pretty much hitting the nail in the head.

The main logical argument I can see stemming from the pro-life advocacy, or at least the best one I have encountered; is a counter argument (figures) stemming from a pro-choice argument.

Basically, we look at the woman. Say 9 times out of 10 an abortion is wanted/required because the baby won't be taken care of properly, either due to socioeconomic issues, the unwillingness to be a proper parent, or some other unfortunate reason. Then let's say roughly 90% of all incidences described prior are likely to cause the child to have an extremely high chance for hating life / growing up awfully or something to that extent (overall negative). The woman is also highly likely for her life to be impacted in a negative way. There is an overall decrease of freedom resulting from these choices. The other 10% end up being either partial or fully positive, lets say, where people have the means to do so but choose not to for whatever reason. This ratio 9:1 is pretty lopsided (and obviously exaggerated for effect), meaning that it makes sense for pro-choice options.

All of that being said, the main argument pro-lifers can use in a debate of said topic, is that "isn't the 10% worth it." Basically such that the few that could prosper (more than 10% really, as not all of the 90% will turn out poor, but a majority if not most of them do) deserve the chance at life.

I'm really cutting this short since I'm at work, but I assume what I wrote makes sense, though poorly worded.

- - - Updated - - -



Pretty much. tagged you for visibility in my last post

This is pretty much the issue in the nutshell, and in a democratic society the majority is what matters.

[Stormspark]

I'll just leave this here. George was a freaking genius.


Until you're born, the government is all about protecting rights. After you're born, basically screw you, you're on your own. Oh, until you turn 18, then we're taking you for the military.

[Mister Cheese]

I see a lot of uses of the word God in that write-up. If that's the premise of the bill, it has no place in this system where there's a separation of church and state.

I am not sure why there is any doubt that this bill is unconstitutional just because the congressmen writing it is using god as his soapbox then.