Iowa Congressman Steven King Abortion Bill

[Thepersona]

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.

The concept of conservatives that your nation was created under god is quite funny, while almost all of your founding fathers stemmed from the enlightement movement and were deists/agnostics

[ro9ue]

These fucking religious dumbasses.

Life begins at conception is some belief in a "soul". So tell me idiots, in Monozygotic twins, which one has the soul?

[Endus]

They also seem SUPER focused on trying to establish that the fetus is a human being, with full rights, and really, that's irrelevant.

The womb is a form of life support for the fetus. To nakedly borrow from prior writers, imagine you woke up one day and found that there are hoses that have been stitched into you overnight, and attached to those hoses is a world-famous violinist. His kidneys have failed, and he can't handle normal dialysis, so they need your kidneys, and yours are the only match. They're not going to TAKE them, but his treatment takes about 9 months, so they need you to share yours for that time. Yes, it'll be an inconvenience, and yes, there are some health risks, but without this, he dies.

Was it "right" for them to seize control of your body and establish this against your will?
Would it be "right" to refuse you any ability to say "no, I don't want to do this, get these out of me"?

The answer to both is pretty clearly "fuck no". You absolutely should have that ability; your right to your own body trumps that violinist's right to life. He doesn't get to seize the use of your body just because "he needs it to live". That's not an argument that works when it's an actual fully-grown human being, even one who's world-famous and a positive contributor to society. So it's ridiculous to try and pretend that it suddenly works with a fetus. The woman's right to choose should be an obvious trump card, like it would be in any other iteration of this set of principles.

[Kujako]

They also seem SUPER focused on trying to establish that the fetus is a human being, with full rights, and really, that's irrelevant.

That fetus has 2nd Amendment rights!

[Jotaux]

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

Its not really a science issue, its more of a legal issue. The classification of when a fetus is considered a human is subjective. To fall back on science when its not applicable is fairly dishonest.

That said this law is ridiculous and gives nearly no time for a potential parent to come to a decision about a lifelong commitment.

[Stormspark]

Its not really a science issue, its more of a legal issue. The classification of when a fetus is considered a human is subjective. To fall back on science when its not applicable is fairly dishonest.

That said this law is ridiculous and gives nearly no time for a potential parent to come to a decision about a lifelong commitment.

It ulimately won't change anything anyway. If abortion were to be completely outlawed like this, the good old back alley abortions performed by shady black market doctors would come back with a vengeance.

[Darsithis]

Its not really a science issue, its more of a legal issue. The classification of when a fetus is considered a human is subjective. To fall back on science when its not applicable is fairly dishonest.

No it's not. Scientifically we can trace the point where a developing fetus transforms into something that is even remotely human. Just having a pulse doesn't make you a human.

[Jotaux]

No it's not. Scientifically we can trace the point where a developing fetus transforms into something that is even remotely human. Just having a pulse doesn't make you a human.

And when is that point, scientifically when is it that a fetus is considered a human being?

[Endus]

Except in your example you would have attached those hoses to yourself.

Impregnation doesn't require conscious assent, no.

[Jotaux]

Impregnation doesn't require conscious assent, no.

So you are saying your example only applies in instances of rape?

- - - Updated - - -

It ulimately won't change anything anyway. If abortion were to be completely outlawed like this, the good old back alley abortions performed by shady black market doctors would come back with a vengeance.

Yeah thats what I figure will happen in Iowa.

[Endus]

So you are saying your example only applies in instances of rape?

I'm not sure how you got that impression. Impregnation is entirely separate from sexual intercourse. We're talking about two different things. Impregnation can occur without intercourse, and intercourse can occur without impregnation. There's some overlap situationally, but consent to sex is not consent to impregnation and bearing a child to term, and it's ridiculous to claim otherwise. It's like arguing that inviting me in for coffee means I have the right to live there for free forever.

[Katchii]

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.

Wasn't arguing one way or the other. Was just stating that for someone seriously trying to get this bill passed....he's throwing in a lot of words that have no place in a system with a separation of church and state. He's an idiot. The bill being unconstitutional is in addition to that statement.

[Garnier Fructis]

Or everyone could have written in Bernie Sanders and then you would have had him as a president. Everyone had options and they followed them through to this.

It's not the fault of the people who didn't write in the candidate that got less votes and less pledged delegates in the primary. That's bizarre. And I voted for Bernie.

[Daymanmb]

Poor Iowan women

I for one, welcome the new wave of dumpster babies. This will hopefully also solve the racoon starvation problem we're currently facing.

[Draco-Onis]

Oh conservatives and their obsessions with government small enough to tell women exactly what their bodies should do.

[Hisholyness]

...

America was founded on the concept that our rights come from God. All human persons have a right to life. How then could we confer that those rights allow the killing of a baby? I believe our most important responsibility that God has bestowed upon us is to protect innocent human life, and I will continue to dedicate my life to that responsibility.”[/I]

...

Government is meant to be secular.

Abortion should not be illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity

[Katchii]

I'm not sure how you got that impression. Impregnation is entirely separate from sexual intercourse. We're talking about two different things. Impregnation can occur without intercourse, and intercourse can occur without impregnation. There's some overlap situationally, but consent to sex is not consent to impregnation and bearing a child to term, and it's ridiculous to claim otherwise. It's like arguing that inviting me in for coffee means I have the right to live there for free forever.

Consent to sex IS consent to impregnation though, just not directly, it's an assumed risk. Nobody signs up to get into an accident when driving a car, but just driving automatically puts you at risk of getting into a driving accident. It's not a consent to carry the child to term, per se, but to say that getting pregnant is not an inherent risk from sex is ridiculous.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

“Since Roe v. Wade was unconstitutionally decided in 1973, nearly 60 million innocent babies' lives have been ended by the abortion industry, all with a rubber stamp by the federal government,”

“

Human life, beginning at the moment of conception, is sacred in all of its forms and today, I introduced a bill that will protect the lives of voiceless innocents.

My legislation will require all physicians, before conducting an abortion, to detect the heartbeat of the unborn child. If a heartbeat is detected, the baby is protected.

America was founded on the concept that our rights come from God. All human persons have a right to life. How then could we confer that those rights allow the killing of a baby? I believe our most important responsibility that God has bestowed upon us is to protect innocent human life, and I will continue to dedicate my life to that responsibility.”

So this King guy is one of those "Life starts at conception people." Which is odd because essentially the moment sperm hits egg and turns into zygote or whatever(Don't remember from Biology), that is when life starts or somehow it has to be protected. This guy is also saying the second there is a heartbeat well the *child* is protected. He also had to push religion into this. Forgive me for being cynical but I doubt he's as righteous as he claims.

All he is doing to me is trying to push what he feels is right, at the cost of woman's right to chose to abort. I'm pro abortion but at a certain # of weeks, that is when I'll say "Uhhh no."

I find this bill to be stupid. He can whine about Roe V Wade all he wants but I'd rather have Abortion legal.

[Wyrt]

Consent to sex IS consent to impregnation though, just not directly, it's an assumed risk. Nobody signs up to get into an accident when driving a car, but just driving automatically puts you at risk of getting into a driving accident. It's not a consent to carry the child to term, per se, but to say that getting pregnant is not an inherent risk from sex is ridiculous.

To carry this analogy through. It would be illegal for people to have insurance pay for their medical and car bills because they assumed the risk of driving and should live with the consequences.

[Adam Jensen]

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

Abstinence only policies have failed every single time.