Georgia governor signs controversial "heartbeat" abortion bill

[Ellen Brown]

"In MY perfect World", People would not copulate without giving thought to the consequences of said action (s). Evolved humans would realize that raising a baby is best done with two parents because the task is daunting and very difficult. Evolved humans would make a commitment to remain focused on the child (children), and that helping them may continue for the remainder of the Parent's lives.

Terminating a pregnancy because the above conditions do not exist must be so sad that the very Angels weep. I am not God, so have no say in the situation.

It is profoundly distressing to me that people are today so hell bent on ripping their fair share off of a life that they do not appreciate or comprehend, that they allow their hormones to prevent their thinking about the most important things in life.

I frequently heard that I was not supposed to be born. Before puberty, I was sorry and angry that I was born. My best efforts to live a decent life are worse than a train wreck.

 

[SomeRandom]

Birth control. Use it.

What if it fails?

Not that I would necessarily recommend anyone go out and just have casual sex. Especially unprotected sex.

But life is complicated. **** happens.

 

[FragrantGrace]

What if it fails?

Not that I would necessarily recommend anyone go out and just have casual sex. Especially unprotected sex.

But life is complicated. **** happens.

That's why there is the pill, Plan B.

 

[dianaiad]

What if it fails?

It fails and you have begun a new human. Now me, I think that if one has sex, CONSENSUAL sex, one is aware that one is pulling the lever on a 'slot machine,' of sorts. Mind you, gamblers on a casino floor are hoping like heck that they hit the jackpot, and people who have sex and don't want a baby are hoping that they don't, but it's the same principle. It's a gamble. You weigh the probabilities...

And if one is responsible, one figures that a resulting human life just might happen, and that human life is, well, a human. A human being. However, birth control seldom fails, if used properly.

I think that someone who honestly believes that his/her few minutes of jollies is worth killing a human being, s/he is...someone I condemn completely. There ARE times when an abortion is necessary. However, the vast majority of abortions that are performed now are just....'oops, I didn't mean that...let's kill the kid and we get a do-over."

Not that I would necessarily recommend anyone go out and just have casual sex. Especially unprotected sex.

But life is complicated. **** happens.

Life is complicated. Stuff happens. However, if you gamble in Vegas, you don't get to NOT pay the debt when you lose. It seems to me that those who play...and figure that they can just kill the human that results, are callous and really nasty people. That is a human life in there.

If you really, REALLY don't want to be pregnant, then....don't have sex. If that's not an option, then go get fixed so that you CAN'T get pregnant, or get a woman pregnant.

People like that shouldn't be reproducing anyway.

On the other hand, if it's "I don't want a kid RIGHT NOW," then be responsible in your birth control methods, OR, don't do what produces babies.

Yeah. Stuff happens. Sex produces babies. That's what it's FOR. Everything about it is to produce babies, from the pleasure one gets (hey, if you like it, you'll do it, and be more likely to have babies) to the fact that women are fertile every month (the guys stick around and help with the kids, meaning the kids are more likely to grow up) to the closeness and communication couples find when they engage in sex. See the one about guys sticking around.

That's if one goes with evolution.

Come to think of it, it works with "God did it," too.

The point is, no matter how you look at it, sex is for reproduction; having babies. If nature wins in spite of all precautions, that's....well, there's this new human life who has one right, I believe, if s/he has no other: the right to try to survive without that being made utterly impossible.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[SomeRandom]

It fails and you have begun a new human. Now me, I think that if one has sex, CONSENSUAL sex, one is aware that one is pulling the lever on a 'slot machine,' of sorts. Mind you, gamblers on a casino floor are hoping like heck that they hit the jackpot, and people who have sex and don't want a baby are hoping that they don't, but it's the same principle. It's a gamble. You weigh the probabilities...

And if one is responsible, one figures that a resulting human life just might happen, and that human life is, well, a human. A human being. However, birth control seldom fails, if used properly.

I think that someone who honestly believes that his/her few minutes of jollies is worth killing a human being, s/he is...someone I condemn completely. There ARE times when an abortion is necessary. However, the vast majority of abortions that are performed now are just....'oops, I didn't mean that...let's kill the kid and we get a do-over."



Life is complicated. Stuff happens. However, if you gamble in Vegas, you don't get to NOT pay the debt when you lose. It seems to me that those who play...and figure that they can just kill the human that results, are callous and really nasty people. That is a human life in there.

If you really, REALLY don't want to be pregnant, then....don't have sex. If that's not an option, then go get fixed so that you CAN'T get pregnant, or get a woman pregnant.

People like that shouldn't be reproducing anyway.

On the other hand, if it's "I don't want a kid RIGHT NOW," then be responsible in your birth control methods, OR, don't do what produces babies.

Yeah. Stuff happens. Sex produces babies. That's what it's FOR. Everything about it is to produce babies, from the pleasure one gets (hey, if you like it, you'll do it, and be more likely to have babies) to the fact that women are fertile every month (the guys stick around and help with the kids, meaning the kids are more likely to grow up) to the closeness and communication couples find when they engage in sex. See the one about guys sticking around.

That's if one goes with evolution.

Come to think of it, it works with "God did it," too.

The point is, no matter how you look at it, sex is for reproduction; having babies. If nature wins in spite of all precautions, that's....well, there's this new human life who has one right, I believe, if s/he has no other: the right to try to survive without that being made utterly impossible.

I don’t know. This “life” you speak of is only a potential. Something that could happen, if given the right circumstances. Even prenatal care is a thing these days. The mother is already alive. A fully fledged human. Her life her personhood is never really up for debate like a fetus. Far as I’m concerned, she has the right to do whatever she wants. Want an abortion? Get one. Want sex? Do so.
Be safe, sure. Be responsible. Sure. But I’m sorry, I place her with fully personhood. Not the fetus. That’s just me though.

 

[SomeRandom]

That's why there is the pill, Plan B.

Sure. But people are idiots and complacency is a thing. How long does a woman have for plan B? Does it coincide within when a woman would even be aware of a pregnancy or not?
I legitimately don’t know. It might be different nowadays then when I took health class years ago.

 

[FragrantGrace]

Sure. But people are idiots and complacency is a thing. How long does a woman have for plan B? Does it coincide within when a woman would even be aware of a pregnancy or not?
I legitimately don’t know. It might be different nowadays then when I took health class years ago.

This may help.


"Approximately 50 percent of pregnancies in the United States are unintended, according to a February 2014 report in the American Journal of Public Health. Plan B is one of several methods of emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex or a birth control failure. It contains the progesterone-like hormone levonorgestrel, taken in 1 or 2 doses. Plan B reportedly prevents roughly 7 out of 8 unintended pregnancies when taken within 72 hours and is even more effective if taken within 12 hours."
How Effective Is Plan B if Taken Within 12 Hours? | Livestrong.com

In 1873 The Comstock Act passed into law. This made not only birth control illegal but it also made any advertisement of birth control illegal.
This in part is what prompted Margaret Sanger in 1916 to open the first clinic that administered BC. She was breaking the law of course and was later arrested for maintaining a public nuisance.

Women have come a long way in gaining their personal freedom and liberty by law. American women were at one time unable to vote. They were considered property of their husbands, and prior to that under the control of their fathers. They couldn't get a job, couldn't inherit, couldn't own property.
Marital rape laws were passed in Massachusetts in 1857. Prior to that it wasn't considered rape when a husband forced his wife to have sex.
In 1871 federal law defining and prosecuting spousal abuse, domestic violence, was passed.
Prior to that there was no law that allowed a woman to prosecute her husband for physical abuse.

You heard that old adage, barefoot and pregnant? That was the reality and intention of certain laws in America at one time.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

What’s so special about a heartbeat, anyway?

The heart beat is to signify life. Because the heart beat pumps this is the argument conservative far-right members use in the idea (aside from the life at conception argument) that by aborting the life you are essentially killing it. This is nothing more than a morality issue thereby making those who would pursue abortion culpable making abortion at this stage equivalent to murder.

Brain dead people have heartbeats.

So do murderers, but that doesn't stop good Christian folk for asking for the death penalty for murderers.

Why should that even be a reason to deny an abortion? Is this a medically agreed upon thing?

Because conservatives believe in Jeebus and conservatives believe if a man doesn't pull out his penis after orgasm that his seminal fluid will automatically make another human being spontaneously. Conservatives also believe that a zygote is the same as me regardless if it has sentience because after all Christians believe a zygote is alive and thereby being alive is a human (even though a zygote does not possess the extent characteristics of a human except a chromosomal blueprint).

 

[Epic Beard Man]

***EDIT***

Get this, the heartbeat bill does not mention any exemptions for rape victims:

"The legislation does not include an exception for rape or incest. “No other law allows for the killing of an innocent child for the crime of his or her father,” the Faith2Action FAQ states.

The "heartbeat" bills that could ban almost all abortions, explained

Good luck ladies if you're raped and end up pregnant and don't know it.

 

[dianaiad]

I don’t know. This “life” you speak of is only a potential. Something that could happen, if given the right circumstances. Even prenatal care is a thing these days. The mother is already alive. A fully fledged human. Her life her personhood is never really up for debate like a fetus. Far as I’m concerned, she has the right to do whatever she wants. Want an abortion? Get one. Want sex? Do so.
Be safe, sure. Be responsible. Sure. But I’m sorry, I place her with fully personhood. Not the fetus. That’s just me though.

Oh, I hate that argument.

It's only a "potential,' if there were options OTHER than 'human adult' or 'death.'

There is no 'potential' for this conceptus/fetus/whatever to become a duck.

If the only think that prevents someone from becoming a human adult is to kill it first, then....the argument that one CAN kill it because it's only a 'potential' person is specious, circular and incredibly sophist.

That's just me, though.

Tell you what: there are a bunch of kids about to jump in the river and swim across because their side of the bank is on fire. They can't NOT jump and they can't go back. They have the 'potential' to reach the other side...and unless the alligators don't eat them, the hippopotamuses don't bite them in half, the river sharks don't get 'em (yeah, yeah, different rivers. Work with me here) they WILL reach that bank.

Unless a sniper shoots 'em so they won't.

Would you buy the sniper's claim that they only had the POTENTIAL to reach the bank, so it was OK to shoot them?

One of the other nutty arguments is that since foeti have so many OTHER obstacles to overcome that would result in natural miscarriages, that it's no big deal to abort one.

Back to the kids in the river. Most of 'em are eaten or bitten in half...and only one or two reaches the bank, and the sniper gets those before they can. The excuse he uses? Well, there were so many OTHER things that should have killed them that it's OK for him to do it.

Yeah, I don't buy the 'they are only potential people." But if you can show me a woman who has given birth to a newborn lamb, rather than a human baby, and you can show me that this lamb was produced by the combination of human sperm and ova, I might listen.

I wish I could put this into more concise terms. But the argument of 'only potential' is just--wrong.

 

[Altfish]

Works for plenty of people with zero issues. You are avoiding my point about teenagers being taught concepts such as action and consequence, and parenting. If a parent does not trust the judgement of their child do not let them off the apron strings

Abstinence-Only Education Is Ineffective And Unethical, Report Argues

There is plenty more similar reports.

 

[dianaiad]

Abstinence does not work

Yes it does.

In fact, it's the only form of birth control absolutely guaranteed to work. Well, that or removing reproductive organs, but abstinence is the only form of birth control that is free and doesn't introduce potentially harmful hormones into the body, and abstinence allows for instant reversal of contraceptive affect.

I suspect, though, that you aren't claiming that abstinence doesn't work, but rather that teaching about abstinence without teaching about effective preventative birth control is ineffective when dealing with teenagers.

Well, that's not true either. I mean...teaching abstinence simply as a form of birth control doesn't work, but teaching it in concert with a solid moral code does so.

Did with me and my siblings, and kids (and they are old enough now so that I can say that with some confidence), my larger extended family and my community.

However, temptations happen. So...abstinence plus a complete grounding in effective birth control.

And abstinence needs to be taught by the parents.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yes it does.

In fact, it's the only form of birth control absolutely guaranteed to work. Well, that or removing reproductive organs, but abstinence is the only form of birth control that is free and doesn't introduce potentially harmful hormones into the body, and abstinence allows for instant reversal of contraceptive affect.

I suspect, though, that you aren't claiming that abstinence doesn't work, but rather that teaching about abstinence without teaching about effective preventative birth control is ineffective when dealing with teenagers.

Well, that's not true either. I mean...teaching abstinence simply as a form of birth control doesn't work, but teaching it in concert with a solid moral code does so.

Did with me and my siblings, and kids (and they are old enough now so that I can say that with some confidence), my larger extended family and my community.

However, temptations happen. So...abstinence plus a complete grounding in effective birth control.

And abstinence needs to be taught by the parents.

And "just say no" is adequate drugs policy.

 

[dianaiad]

And "just say no" is adequate drugs policy.

'just say no' works great, If you just say no. The problem is in advocating 'just say no' as the only support system there is.

 

[dianaiad]

This may help.


"Approximately 50 percent of pregnancies in the United States are unintended, according to a February 2014 report in the American Journal of Public Health. Plan B is one of several methods of emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex or a birth control failure. It contains the progesterone-like hormone levonorgestrel, taken in 1 or 2 doses. Plan B reportedly prevents roughly 7 out of 8 unintended pregnancies when taken within 72 hours and is even more effective if taken within 12 hours."
How Effective Is Plan B if Taken Within 12 Hours? | Livestrong.com

In 1873 The Comstock Act passed into law. This made not only birth control illegal but it also made any advertisement of birth control illegal.
This in part is what prompted Margaret Sanger in 1916 to open the first clinic that administered BC. She was breaking the law of course and was later arrested for maintaining a public nuisance.

Women have come a long way in gaining their personal freedom and liberty by law. American women were at one time unable to vote. They were considered property of their husbands, and prior to that under the control of their fathers. They couldn't get a job, couldn't inherit, couldn't own property.
Marital rape laws were passed in Massachusetts in 1857. Prior to that it wasn't considered rape when a husband forced his wife to have sex.
In 1871 federal law defining and prosecuting spousal abuse, domestic violence, was passed.
Prior to that there was no law that allowed a woman to prosecute her husband for physical abuse.

You heard that old adage, barefoot and pregnant? That was the reality and intention of certain laws in America at one time.

Indeed. However, you ARE talking about a century and a half ago. I think we need to get our heads into the 21st century, yes? What was forbidden to women then has little to do with what is possible now. There is very little need to have unplanned pregnancies, if birth control is used, and used properly.

Oh....

And if the people who would enter into consensual sex would just THINK about how, if they do get pregnant, there really IS another human life to consider. Perhaps that might 'cool their ardor' a bit.

 

[FragrantGrace]

Indeed. However, you ARE talking about a century and a half ago. I think we need to get our heads into the 21st century, yes? There is very little need to have unplanned pregnancies, if birth control is used, and used properly.

Oh....

And if the people who would enter into consensual sex would just THINK about how, if they do get pregnant, there really IS another human life to consider. Perhaps that might 'cool their ardor' a bit.

I'm aware of the time thanks.
The point being, there has always been opposition to women having the right to control there reproductive rights and privacy in what has ostensibly been referred to as a free country.

 

[Altfish]

Yes it does.

In fact, it's the only form of birth control absolutely guaranteed to work. Well, that or removing reproductive organs, but abstinence is the only form of birth control that is free and doesn't introduce potentially harmful hormones into the body, and abstinence allows for instant reversal of contraceptive affect.

I suspect, though, that you aren't claiming that abstinence doesn't work, but rather that teaching about abstinence without teaching about effective preventative birth control is ineffective when dealing with teenagers.

Well, that's not true either. I mean...teaching abstinence simply as a form of birth control doesn't work, but teaching it in concert with a solid moral code does so.

Did with me and my siblings, and kids (and they are old enough now so that I can say that with some confidence), my larger extended family and my community.

However, temptations happen. So...abstinence plus a complete grounding in effective birth control.

And abstinence needs to be taught by the parents.

You can teach it all you like; do they listen? - do they heck!

Most kids rebel starting at about 14 from their parents, it is called growing up.

My Dad played me The Beatles, I liked The Stones
My Mum wanted my hair short and tidy; I grew it long and unruly.

If Mum and Dad say something is bad; teenagers try it.

They told me "Don't drink too much", I got slaughtered.

Abstinence works great with boring compliant kids, but for 80%+ it is an abject failure.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What are your thoughts?

Just more evidence of the pro-brood mare crowd's hatred of women and America's backwards slide into irrelevance.

 

[columbus]

Yet the term 'person' isn't a scientific or medical fact. It's an assigned value, given to a human (or something else, like a corporation) by the legal system. It changes according to culture. Being a 'person' means that one has the rights of a person. But how is 'personhood' determined?

This is why I don't often use the words "person" or "personhood" in this conversation. It's totally subjective.
Similar to the word "murder".

I try to stick to the much more objective words "human being" and "killing". As in "Abortion is a human being choosing to kill another human being".

Sometimes we do that. We kill other human beings. But there is a moral distinction to be made between killing in self-defense and killing because some other human being is in between us and what we want.
Medical necessity justifies the first. Some pregnancies are just doomed. But choosing the death of your progeny, because you wish you hadn't made the choice that you did, is very different. Because then you're making two choices, one for the sex and the other for killing your child.
Tom

 

[SomeRandom]

Oh, I hate that argument.

It's only a "potential,' if there were options OTHER than 'human adult' or 'death.'

There is no 'potential' for this conceptus/fetus/whatever to become a duck.

If the only think that prevents someone from becoming a human adult is to kill it first, then....the argument that one CAN kill it because it's only a 'potential' person is specious, circular and incredibly sophist.

That's just me, though.

Tell you what: there are a bunch of kids about to jump in the river and swim across because their side of the bank is on fire. They can't NOT jump and they can't go back. They have the 'potential' to reach the other side...and unless the alligators don't eat them, the hippopotamuses don't bite them in half, the river sharks don't get 'em (yeah, yeah, different rivers. Work with me here) they WILL reach that bank.

Unless a sniper shoots 'em so they won't.

Would you buy the sniper's claim that they only had the POTENTIAL to reach the bank, so it was OK to shoot them?

One of the other nutty arguments is that since foeti have so many OTHER obstacles to overcome that would result in natural miscarriages, that it's no big deal to abort one.

Back to the kids in the river. Most of 'em are eaten or bitten in half...and only one or two reaches the bank, and the sniper gets those before they can. The excuse he uses? Well, there were so many OTHER things that should have killed them that it's OK for him to do it.

Yeah, I don't buy the 'they are only potential people." But if you can show me a woman who has given birth to a newborn lamb, rather than a human baby, and you can show me that this lamb was produced by the combination of human sperm and ova, I might listen.

I wish I could put this into more concise terms. But the argument of 'only potential' is just--wrong.

Why is it just wrong, though?
Is it not potential? Is a zygote or fetus a fully fledged human being or does it have the potential to be one? I never once said it had the potential to be anything other than a human. Just that it’s not quite there yet. Ie not quite a being with full personhood yet, unlike the pregnant woman. It can be human with the right help. But I don’t think any woman is obligated to do that. Even biology is not obligated. That’s their choice.

Perhaps you can direct me to a specific scientific, medically sound, definition of the precise moment when a zygote or fetus magically becomes a fully fledged human being. It might help in these matters. In fact it would be a downright godsend.

A woman, indeed a baby, has already been born. They can survive without the womb. They can even survive without their natural biological mother. As can those kids who jump into rivers, or can be snipered to death. They don’t need the ongoing permission of the person literally carrying them inside their body in order to keep functioning. That’s the difference.

I have a very stringent definition of bodily autonomy.
If the woman says, “nope” then that’s the final decision as far as I’m concerned. If the father wishes to be prominent fixture in the baby’s life after birth, then he can discuss it and try to work it out with the mother.
Granted I might balk at a late term abortion, but those are usually only done for medical reasons.

I know that my attitude seems harsh towards the fetus. But I just place more weight with an already functioning human being, than a being that no one can seem to decide has full personhood or not. Show me where people in the civilised world are calling the woman’s personhood into question. With foetuses, that’s all we seem to argue about.