"once a heartbeat is detected, the baby is protected"

Hallow_Ed said:

with final services trending toward cremation, it would be bad for the environment due to increased fossil fuel usage...

Click to expand...

Nonsense! Fossil fuels are a renewable resource! Just ask Ishmael!

"Oil is burned in internal combustion engines, releasing burnt hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. Eventually they coalesce in the troposphere, and fall back to earth with rainfall. Being heavier than water, the coalesced hydrocarbons sink deep into the soil, where they eventually pool, and the circle of petrochemical life begins anew".

Click to expand...

RobDownSouth said:

Nonsense! Fossil fuels are a renewable resource! Just ask Ishmael!

Click to expand...

im having a big glass full right now.

Rob, merc, thanks for the info. I would think most people can agree that if someone is going to have an abortion, sooner is better.

Hallow_Ed said:

neither can you grandma...

Click to expand...

Okay, I laughed at that.

Does Roe vs Wade apply to teens?

pornstarwannabe said:

Does Roe vs Wade apply to teens?

Click to expand...

Do you have something you wish to confess?

RobDownSouth said:

Do you have something you wish to confess?

Click to expand...

Nope. But Roe v Wade was referenced, and I wondered if the original ruling applied to teens.

eyer said:

The Ohio Heartbeat Law...

...has already passed Ohio's House of Representatives and needs a simple majority, 17 of 33 Senators, to move to Governor John Kasich's desk "to be signed into the most protective law in the nation."

The Ohio Legislature resumes September 20 following their summer recess...

...you can Google The Ohio Heartbeat Law to read your fill.

Some supporters are, unsurprisingly, very optimistic:

"We also have every indication that the current Supreme Court will uphold Ohio's Heartbeat Law. In Gonzales v. Carhart (which upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion), the Supreme Court, after nearly four decades of recognizing only "potential life" in the womb, recognized as an undisputed "finding of fact" that a "living fetus" exists from the time of detectable heartbeat! What happens in Ohio will affect the nation! Already seven states are lined up to follow Ohio's lead."

Click to expand...

Since I'm the only person in this damned forum who apparently ever bothers to actually read a Supreme Court opinion, I guess it falls to me once again to disabuse everyone from eyer's blatant deceit that he attempts to pass off as dutiful reportage. In so doing, I may also dispute (if not wholly discredit) whatever fantasies are at work in the Ohio legislature.

To begin with, while the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) made passing reference to fetal life, it most certainly did NOT directly link that life to a fetal heartbeat. In fact, I cannot find the word "heartbeat" anywhere in Justice Kennedy's opinion written for the majority. Perhaps someone here might be so good as to correct my oversight.

Moreover, the Court's reference to a fetus as a "living organism" is made as a matter of undisputed presumption, and however factual that so-called "finding" may be, it quite obviously carries no legal significance in Gonzales or any of the other cases with direct lineage from Roe. Here is the relevant section from the majority opinion (with my emphasis):

The Act punishes “knowingly perform[ing]” a “partial-birth abortion.” §1531(a) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). It defines the unlawful abortion in explicit terms. §1531(b)(1).

First, the person performing the abortion must “vaginally delive[r] a living fetus.” §1531(b)(1)(A). The Act does not restrict an abortion procedure involving the delivery of an expired fetus. The Act, furthermore, is inapplicable to abortions that do not involve vaginal delivery (for instance, hysterotomy or hysterectomy). The Act does apply both previability and postviability because, by common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 971–972. We do not understand this point to be contested by the parties.

Click to expand...

Not only is the point uncontested, it is, once again, legally irrelevant. Go back and read the paragraph again. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 ONLY prohibits abortion procedures that partially deliver a live fetus vaginally and then effect the death of the fetus just prior to full delivery. This was a primary reason the Court found that the Act does not present a "substantial obstacle to the woman’s exercise of the right to choose.” Because it only prohibits one type of abortion.

In fact, the Act not only allows, it essentially requires abortion doctors to perform a "regular" dilation and evacuation (D&E) as opposed to an "intact" D&E. A regular D&E has the doctor injecting digoxin or potassium chloride to kill the fetus and then going in a few days later and removing it surgically. By that time the fetal corpse has softened up and is usually torn apart as the doctor removes it piece by piece.

In terms of sheer gore, an intact D&E has nothing more to recommend it, but a partial birth ban has to be the most pyrrhic of all victories in the abortion battle.

Come now the Ohioans and their amici in an attempt to revive a legal standard which the Court, in Roe and since, has expressly declined to embrace, and has all but removed from the abortion debate.

It has about as much chance as an unborn child facing a D&E.

"once a heartbeat is detected, the baby is protected"

Once a rhyme is detected, the legislator or lobbyist who came up with it needs to be tarred and feathered.

Liar said:

"once a heartbeat is detected, the baby is protected"

Once a rhyme is detected, the legislator or lobbyist who came up with it needs to be tarred and feathered.

Click to expand...

That doesn't rhyme.

fgarvb1 said:

I keep hearing this and I keep thinking what has that got to do with the baby?

Why punish the baby with death for being alive?

I think too much sometimes.

Some dude had sex with your mother so we are killing you.

Ok then...

Click to expand...

Rape is NOT 'some dude had sex'.
It is a complete invasion of person, in a way that most men will NEVER be able to understand.
How dare you presume to know what effect a pregnancy as a result of rape has on a woman!
In my own case, if I had not had access to abortion to get rid of the bastard result, I would have done everything possible to kill it while I was carrying it.
I did not deserve the next 9 months of hell that he FORCED on me.
When YOU have a child after rape, get back to me.

Cloudy is a bit short on concepts, reason, logic and science. That life begins at the instant of conception is a medical fact.

As a Nation, we honor and protect all life, purposefully engendered or not.

One regrets and sympathizes with any assault on the person, but one can not take a life to assuage ones' conscience.

Amicus

amicus said:

Cloudy is a bit short on concepts, reason, logic and science. That life begins at the instant of conception is a medical fact.

As a Nation, we honor and protect all life, purposefully engendered or not.

One regrets and sympathizes with any assault on the person, but one can not take a life to assuage ones' conscience.

Amicus

Click to expand...

It's homicide for sure, but at times, in the case of rape, or deceit, justifiable.

All due respect to the Colonel, but with the sheer number of states beginning to revisit the issue, we may have a chance for the Supreme Court to reverse a very bad decision by throwing out bad precedent and returning to an original interpretation type of ruling.

I read something about that recently; I'll try to remember where.

Frisco_Slug_Esq said:

It's homicide for sure, but at times, in the case of rape, or deceit, justifiable.

All due respect to the Colonel, but with the sheer number of states beginning to revisit the issue, we may have a chance for the Supreme Court to reverse a very bad decision by throwing out bad precedent and returning to an original interpretation type of ruling.

I read something about that recently; I'll try to remember where.

Click to expand...

Frankly, I really hope you are right and I'm wrong, but my pessimism stems from Kennedy being the swing vote in any future review of Roe.

In 1992, he reaffirmed the principle in Roe recognizing the right to abortion under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

His majority opinion in Gonzales rests on the rationale that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 does not impose an "undue burden on the previability abortion right (which) exists if a regulation’s “purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the [woman’s] path.”

That doesn't sound to me like a guy who is inclined to shit can Roe in its totality despite his being more open to a broader application of a state's interests in regulating abortions.

Again, I hope I'm wrong.

amicus said:

Cloudy is a bit short on concepts, reason, logic and science. That life begins at the instant of conception is a medical fact.
As a Nation, we honor and protect all life, purposefully engendered or not.
One regrets and sympathizes with any assault on the person, but one can not take a life to assuage ones' conscience.
Amicus

Click to expand...

Hey amicoward, I challenged your anti-abortion bumper sticker philosophy HERE

Pity you weren't up to the challenge.

amicus said:

As a Nation, we honor and protect all life, purposefully engendered or not.


Amicus

Click to expand...

When you say "...all life..." do you really mean All Life, or are there any qualifiers you'd like to attach to that statement?

1sickbastard said:

When you say "...all life..." do you really mean All Life, or are there any qualifiers you'd like to attach to that statement?

Click to expand...

LOL I was wondering the same thing.
Well, not really, I know there are qualifiers.

eyer said:

The Ohio Heartbeat Law

Click to expand...

...What a shame... GOD doesn't agree with Ohio."

Genesis 2:7.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

When will men start to realize they should not tell women what they can and can't do.

renard_ruse said:

Viability was the test used in Roe vs. Wade. Somehow, the idea of compromise was lost when pro-abortion extremists started demanding the "right" to abort through all nine months. Roe vs. Wade never held there is a "right" to abort through all nine months of pregnancy.

Pro-abortion extremists are like the pro-gun people who demand the right own bazookas or machine guns. There should be room for compromise.

Click to expand...

Three cheers for Bazooka!

http://www.chocolategelt.com/catalog/images/passover-bazooka.jpg

CNYCarol said:

...What a shame... GOD doesn't agree with Ohio."

Genesis 2:7.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Click to expand...

the Bible also says if you work on Sunday.................... you have to die


"Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death."

Exodus 25 :2

badbabysitter said:

the Bible also says if you work on Sunday.................... you have to die


"Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death."

Exodus 25 :2

Click to expand...

So, you want to quote from the Law Administration and force people in the Grace Administration to adhere to the same laws.

This is Man's biggest error, he wants to wrap God up into a neat little package.

Different Administrations, Different Rules!

When is mankind going to realize that God makes the rules.

Man has only three things he needs to do.

LEARN God's Rules, LIVE God's Rules and TEACH God's Rules!

Fortunately for us, the rules became MUCH easier about 2000 years ago!

CNYCarol said:

So, you want to quote from the Law Administration and force people in the Grace Administration to adhere to the same laws.

This is Man's biggest error, he wants to wrap God up into a neat little package.

Different Administrations, Different Rules!

When is mankind going to realize that God makes the rules.

Man has only three things he needs to do.

LEARN God's Rules, LIVE God's Rules and TEACH God's Rules!

Fortunately for us, the rules became MUCH easier about 2000 years ago!

Click to expand...

The Mosaic Law was abolished and not replaced. God has no rules to learn, live or teach any more.

All that's left is more like guidelines. Love God and love your neighbors. No directions for compliance, no possibility of enforcement and no penalties for infractions.

mercury14 said:

So you're saying that Republicans know when life begins. It shouldn't be a medical or scientific decision.

Click to expand...

life begins @ 21 when you can drink legally

Again, I am always amazed at the zeal displayed by the Christian right to protect the lives of the unborn. However, I find the dichotomy ironic that during the Republican debates over the last couple of weeks, those same ''Christians'' seemed ok with letting people die if they show up at a hospital without health insurance.

When Ron Paul was asked how he'd deal with a thirty year old man who'd been involved in an accident who had no health insurance, he seemed slow, even reluctant to answer. Several people in the audience decided to chime in at that point. "LET HIM DIE", I believe was their response.

Was I the only one who heard that? If not... Was I the only person who found that disturbing?

Why is it that, according to the conservative philosophy, you're only entitled to the right to live if you're a fetus and if you're already here, you're on your own?

For those here who profess christianity and the values that supposedly go with that, I find it confusing that so many people among you seem to lack any compassion for their fellow man. Don't you preach universal love and harmony? Don't you believe in "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE DONE TO YOU".

I've been in the christian faith, not currently, but for a while as younger man. I remember sitting in the pew listening to my pastor as he preached "love thy neighbor as thyself" Frequently, during sermons, he spoke of the gifts of the holy spirit... As I recall, one of those gifts was CHARITY. So, with all due respect to those here who may actually be living according to Christian principals, I ask you this question

WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

And to those who would advocate the allowance of the of even one person's death because they lacked adequate health insurance. To you I would say... SHAME ON YOU!!!

skygazer said:

WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

Click to expand...

Tell walking dead men the TRUTH...