Kyle wrote:You do know this would only ban abortions after 20 weeks, right (and allows certain medical exceptions)? Also, women wouldn't be prosecuted under the law. Did you not understand it? Or were you just lying and hoping people wouldn't read it to get in an uproar about it on your side?
Anyway, though I am pro-life, I'm not often a fan of the attempts to make abortion illegal, for one reason: they really don't do a lot to truly address the problem. Abortions would still take place. Making things illegal is not the way to stop something from happening. Education is. Maybe the people behind this thing are working on that front too, but in my experience, that's not usually the case. If they really want to stop abortions they would go about it a different way. This would probably cut a few of them, especially early on, but not a lot of them. So while I can't say I'm against it, I don't really think it's the best way to approach things.
But it doesn't really matter. It passed the House, but has no chance to pass the Senate.
The bills [sic] states women who abort can be jailed.
‘‘(d) BAR TO PROSECUTION.—A woman upon whom an abortion in violation of subsection (a) is performed or attempted may not be prosecuted under, or for a conspiracy to violate, subsection (a), or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on such a violation.
Fan_Of_Blindfolds wrote:The bills [sic] states women who abort can be jailed.‘‘(d) BAR TO PROSECUTION.—A woman upon whom an abortion in violation of subsection (a) is performed or attempted may not be prosecuted under, or for a conspiracy to violate, subsection (a), or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on such a violation.
Hate to break it to you, but the bill states the exact opposite.
Also this is the second time you've posted a thread like this (to my knowledge - there may be more). It's good to have opinions and to defend them, but you seem not to understand that not everyone agrees, nor that people who disagree with you aren't inherently idiots nor wrong. I'm not objecting to what you're saying, but to the way you say it.
-In 2006, the U.S. food supply provided 3,900 calories per person per day. Accounting for waste, the average American consumed 2,594 calories per day in 2009 – an increase of 20% from 1970.
-In 2008, 200 pounds of meat per person was available for consumption, which is up 13 pounds from 1970. 34% of grains grown are used to feed animals(down from 50%+ in past years).
-26% of the edible food available is wasted at the consumer level.
vantran wrote:The bills states women who abort can be jailed.
vantran wrote:Let's flood America with Babies!
Kyle wrote:vantran wrote:Let's flood America with Babies!
So I will take it this means you have nothing.
vantran wrote:http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr1797rfs/pdf/BILLS-113hr1797rfs.pdf
Or in simple terms the Bill to stop all women from performing abortions in the US.
drawscore wrote:vantran wrote:http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr1797rfs/pdf/BILLS-113hr1797rfs.pdf
Or in simple terms the Bill to stop all women from performing abortions in the US.
But men can still perform them?
Drawscore
vantran wrote:sure let's screw and stop rape victims from ever seeking help.
mikeybound wrote:vantran wrote:sure let's screw and stop rape victims from ever seeking help.
You know, plenty of women view the baby as the only good thing to come of these cases. At the very least, one could reason that an abortion isn't fair to it just because it was conceived in a traumatic experience.
Jason Toddman wrote:Mikeybound's reasoning is really all the more reason why disapproving of contraception seems worse than stupid to me.
mikeybound wrote:Well Felix, the reasoning there is that the moment a sperm and egg bond to form a zygot they're human.
mikeybound wrote:Jason Toddman wrote:Mikeybound's reasoning is really all the more reason why disapproving of contraception seems worse than stupid to me.
I'm not quite sure how to take that.
Kyle wrote:You ever notice how fathers are never brought into the discussion on this topic?
FelixSH wrote:mikeybound wrote:Well Felix, the reasoning there is that the moment a sperm and egg bond to form a zygot they're human.
I still don´t see why here the sperm and the egg are somehow magically a human. And, even if some people might not like it, we HAVE to define when the fetus becomes a human. You did that too. You define it that way as soon as sperm and egg bond. I don´t think it is a human at that point. The line has to be drawn somewhere, of course, but this is done at least somewhat arbitrarily.
And again, this is not only about the baby. The situation of the mother and what she wants is also highly relevant.
mikeybound wrote:FelixSH wrote:mikeybound wrote:Well Felix, the reasoning there is that the moment a sperm and egg bond to form a zygot they're human.
I still don´t see why here the sperm and the egg are somehow magically a human. And, even if some people might not like it, we HAVE to define when the fetus becomes a human. You did that too. You define it that way as soon as sperm and egg bond. I don´t think it is a human at that point. The line has to be drawn somewhere, of course, but this is done at least somewhat arbitrarily.
And again, this is not only about the baby. The situation of the mother and what she wants is also highly relevant.
It's not about when something is a person, but what is a person. 46 chromosomes that make 23 pairs that carry the human genome. As long as something has that, it's human. There isn't a point where the fetus suddenly becomes human. It's human the entire time. You were a fetus, I was a fetus, the mods were fetuses, and if we were aborted we'd be dead now. And yes, when a sperm and egg merge it is magically a human. It has a reasonable chance of having an entire life ahead of it, and people should have no more right to end that before birth than we do after.
mikeybound wrote:Personally, I believe that it isn't about a woman's choice. I believe pregnancy gives one a responsibility to see the life through and provide the best start possible for the baby.
mikeybound wrote:I'd like to think I'd keep this viewpoint even if I were a woman going through an unwanted pregnancy, but there's really no way to be sure.
mikeybound wrote: I'm just saying "unwanted" or "unpleasant" aren't satisfactory reasons.
mikeybound wrote: As for the father, it isn't fair to completely cut him out. It's his child as much as it is the woman's, and he shouldn't be forced to just sit by and watch it get aborted.
mikeybound wrote: I wish people would stop treating these cases like the woman is the only one who's affected.