Iowa Congressman Steven King Abortion Bill

[Jastall]

Sharia law isnt a boogey-man. It's one of the most dangerous "law" systems in the modern world. If you dont think a vast majority of the worlds muslims would love to take over and enact sharia law you're nuts.

Also, do your own research. The crime rates over europe have all spiked, especially in places like Germany where native german children are afraid to go to school because the muslim children beat the shit out of them on a daily basis.

Sharia law isn't even used in the vast majority of Muslim countries in the first place. Inform yourself for pete's sake.

And the whole 'well, you decided to have sex, so you need to endure the unwanted child'' argument is pure nonsense. ''well, we won't save you from injuries resulting from a car accident, you just had to not take your car!''. This is the kind of logic we're dealing with. Unwanted pregnancies happen all the time, and heartbeat means shit since it can easily happen before the woman is even aware of her pregnancy. Furthermore, every period a woman has can easily jettison loads of fertilized eggs off her body. Does it mean every woman who had a period shortly after sex is a serial killer? Come on.

[Cebel]

Because Endus and the other mods obviously has nothing better to do than to categorize the users of this forum in a list that is the political equivalent of Santa Claus's naughty and nice people list.

That doesn't sound ridiculous to you?

Handing the infractions based on your avatar is just as likely to me.

Shit, just realized Endus still has that christmas cap on his avatar. Maybe it is true after all.

Considering the continuously infract that same users for posting non-controversial things that simply disagree with other posters... No I dont think its ridiculous. In fact I've heard from several people who are ex-mods that endus did this shit and held grudges regularly.

- - - Updated - - -

We do. Your issue is that a fetus isn't a human being, and thus isn't a person.



And a human fetus fails to pass those kinds of tests in early terms. Homeostasis is the big one; the fetus can't self-regulate its own systems until after the 20th week or so.

If this even mattered, which again, it really doesn't, since even if we granted a fetus personhood to make some people feel better, it still wouldn't grant the fetus any right to abrogate the woman's body rights.

Cool, so when are you going to infract the users in this thread? You're always hot to trot to infract myself and other conservative posters.

- - - Updated - - -

[Kraenen]

We do. Your issue is that a fetus isn't a human being, and thus isn't a person.

And a human fetus fails to pass those kinds of tests in early terms. Homeostasis is the big one; the fetus can't self-regulate its own systems until after the 20th week or so.

But it also has human genetics, is alive, and has the roadmap for its own predictably becoming a human being. I know it's simplistic, but when you get pregnant, you usually end up having a human child. It's not as if this is an unknown entity.

If this even mattered, which again, it really doesn't, since even if we granted a fetus personhood to make some people feel better, it still wouldn't grant the fetus any right to abrogate the woman's body rights.

Well, and save some lives (outside of medically necessary abortions or incest) if we deem it to be a person. In elective cases the argument could shift away from the woman's choice to balancing economic reasons for abortion with the life of a potential person.

[dinth]

Cool, so when are you going to infract the users in this thread? You're always hot to trot to infract myself and other conservative posters.- - - Updated - - -

Just curious, but are you capable of acting any more childish? You seriously come off like you're having a tantrum, you should be embarrassed.

[Jotaux]

snip

Where is this from?

[Kraenen]

Sharia law isn't even used in the vast majority of Muslim countries in the first place. Inform yourself for pete's sake.

I don't think so. Just glancing at this map your statement seems to be false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applic...by_country#Map - there are a few central asian and west african countries which are in the minority.

[Jotaux]

If this even mattered, which again, it really doesn't, since even if we granted a fetus personhood to make some people feel better, it still wouldn't grant the fetus any right to abrogate the woman's body rights.

There are many instances where a child's needs supersede the parents'.

[Endus]

But it also has human genetics, is alive, and has the roadmap for its own predictably becoming a human being. I know it's simplistic, but when you get pregnant, you usually end up having a human child. It's not as if this is an unknown entity.

I colored the above for simpler response.

The bit in red is irrelevant; my toenail clippings have "human genetics".
The big in green is also irrelevant; the mold in my shower is "alive".
And the bit in blue is an attempt to use a hypothetical future timeline as an argument against actions today. Which isn't how the law works, at all. You don't get to get away with a murder because the victim might have someday attacked you, making it retroactive self defense. If you simply meant that it has the potential, then you're repeating yourself, because that's "genetics", which you already covered.

These just aren't factors that define personhood. Everything you just stated applies to spermatozoa and ova, just as much as a fetus.

And I'll repeat; personhood is a fool's errand anyway, because even if you changed the laws to grant a fetus personhood, it wouldn't justify any change in abortion law. At best, it might require minimally-harmful means to be used to extract the unwanted fetus intact, but nothing beyond that.

[Thepersona]

There are many instances where a child's needs supersede the parents'.

Yeah, but that happens after the child is born

[Endus]

There are many instances where a child's needs supersede the parents'.

Not when it comes to body rights. If your child needs a lung transplant, and you're the only potential donor, and you don't wanna do it, nothing can force you to donate that lung. Your kid will probably hate you, but it's your decision, and they have no right to it.

[Darsithis]

Stop discussing moderation. Come to a global for clarification or appeal of an infraction

[Jotaux]

Not when it comes to body rights. If your child needs a lung transplant, and you're the only potential donor, and you don't wanna do it, nothing can force you to donate that lung. Your kid will probably hate you, but it's your decision, and they have no right to it.

So you would be okay with an abortion a day before the expected birth?

[Thepersona]

So you would be okay with an abortion a day before the expected birth?

Well, yeah. Its called giving birth.

[Darsithis]

So you would be okay with an abortion a day before the expected birth?

If you waited that long for an abortion I would say you have serious mental problems. It's not like she wouldn't have had nearly 9 months to decide.

[Kraenen]

I colored the above for simpler response.

The bit in red is irrelevant; my toenail clippings have "human genetics".
The big in green is also irrelevant; the mold in my shower is "alive".
And the bit in blue is an attempt to use a hypothetical future timeline as an argument against actions today. Which isn't how the law works, at all. You don't get to get away with a murder because the victim might have someday attacked you, making it retroactive self defense. If you simply meant that it has the potential, then you're repeating yourself, because that's "genetics", which you already covered.

Notice how I used the 'and' operator. You can't dissassemble each part on its own and say the argument is false. They work together towards the conclusion.

Again, we're not talking "might have" become a human being. We're talking "predictably under most circumstances" become a human being.

These just aren't factors that define personhood. Everything you just stated applies to spermatozoa and ova, just as much as a fetus.

And I'll repeat; personhood is a fool's errand anyway, because even if you changed the laws to grant a fetus personhood, it wouldn't justify any change in abortion law. At best, it might require minimally-harmful means to be used to extract the unwanted fetus intact, but nothing beyond that.

Yeah that's true. I'll give you a good point on the sperm/ova.

I just still think it changes the argument in a moral, social sense (as I mentioned, away from 100% the woman's choice to a balancing act of potential human life and economic reasons since medically necessary abortions are about 0.3% of all abortions), and this change would cascade towards changing the legal sense (eventually, in a long time).

[Jotaux]

Yeah, but that happens after the child is born

As far as I know, currently after 24 weeks pregnant you cannot legally abort the child.

I'm pro-choice and think this law would be crazy, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss something subjective like personhood.

[Roxaos]

Here's one thing I don't get about Pro-Birth advocates. If we give a fetus personhood does that not mean that we subject them to the same standards as everyone else? What happens in the case of someone leeching (stealing) off someone else to keep itself alive? Do we not give the host every right to deny this "thief" access to their person?

At the end of the day life seems to be more of a privilege, than a right.

[Jastall]

I don't think so. Just glancing at this map your statement seems to be false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applic...by_country#Map - there are a few central asian and west african countries which are in the minority.

Actually looking at the details, most of those who ''use sharia law'' employ regional variants of Sharia law mixed in with secular systems. When people speak of Sharia, it's generally meant as applying it in full, for criminal and civil proceedings, with no attempts to modernise it, which is indeed a backwards, oppressing system of law. And these cases are relatively few, all things considered, and concentrated in the Middle East which is far from the only region with Muslim countries.

My statement wasn't entirely correct, I will admit. But the situation is vastly more complex than ''evil moslems want to take over and make us sharia lol'' and anyways this has no relevance to the topic so I'll personally drop it. I shouldn't even have responded to that statement TBH.

[Kraenen]

My statement wasn't entirely correct, I will admit. But the situation is vastly more complex than ''evil moslems want to take over and make us sharia lol'' and anyways this has no relevance to the topic so I'll personally drop it. I shouldn't even have responded to that statement TBH.

You shouldn't have used quotes to refer to something no one actually said either (just one of my pet peeves in general on this forum is when people take some alleged views and put them into exaggerated paraphrases using quotes)

[Jotaux]

Here's one thing I don't get about Pro-Birth advocates. If we give a fetus personhood does that not mean that we subject them to the same standards as everyone else? What happens in the case of someone leeching (stealing) off someone else to keep itself alive? Do we not give the host every right to deny this "thief" access to their person?

I think no because it would fall under what you are required to provide as a parent.

Also where did you get that quote from before it speaks a lot to my own views on the matter.