Supreme Court possibly overturning Roe v Wade?

[wufan]

Heartbeat law. Learn it, love it. Contraception is okay, day-after pills are okay, even clinical abortion is okay -- as long as the heart isn't beating. Raped and want an abortion? It's okay, if the child's heart isn't beating. Day after pill didn't work? You have recourse.

Just make your decision before the heart starts beating.

While I agree with the sentiment, and find it to be a reasonable compromise, a heart beat is not what makes a human an individual with unalienable god given rights.

[Kung Wu]

While I agree with the sentiment, and find it to be a reasonable compromise, a heart beat is not what makes a human an individual with unalienable god given rights.

It might be.

[Kel Varnsen]

While I agree with the sentiment, and find it to be a reasonable compromise, a heart beat is not what makes a human an individual with unalienable god given rights.

What does, then?

[Kel Varnsen]

If it has a heartbeat, it's a life. If it has its own DNA, it's a life. To kill a live human being is murder.

If someone can describe an the process of an abortion to me and tell me somehow that it's not a living human being, I'm interested to hear it. But you are literally terminating a living human being. That's murder.

And yes, the mother and the "doctor" should be charged with murder if the "doctor" performs an abortion. You would never think to not charge the person hiring a hitman.

[1972Shocker]

What does, then?

I don't think there will ever be full agreement on that. However, I don't think we have even tried to come to a reasonable compromise on that point in this country. That probably needs to be the starting point before we attempt to legislate this issue. I don't think abortion is going away so we need to come to some reasonable compromise.

The things is we know so much more about the development of the life in the womb now than we did in 1973 when Roe vs Wade was decided. I don't think we even had sonograms yet at that time.

Here is a video titled Life Before Birth - In The Womb that my wife and I watched a couple of weeks ago. It's long. An hour and 42 minutes but I learned a lot of things form watching this.

[CBB_Fan]

If it has a heartbeat, it's a life. If it has its own DNA, it's a life. To kill a live human being is murder.

If someone can describe an the process of an abortion to me and tell me somehow that it's not a living human being, I'm interested to hear it. But you are literally terminating a living human being. That's murder.

And yes, the mother and the "doctor" should be charged with murder if the "doctor" performs an abortion. You would never think to not charge the person hiring a hitman.

This may sound like a technicality, but while murder is killing, killing is not murder. Murder is the unlawful, premeditated killing of one human being by another. There are many forms of killing that either are lawful or aren't premeditated. War, execution, accident, many actions by police, self defense, defense of another, etc.

The argument would not stop at a codified definition of life, and it wouldn't start the presumption of murder. For instance, an ectopic pregnancy can develop to the point of having a heartbeat, but any medical professional would advise disregarding the legal rights a codified definition of life might grant because the pregnancy is still not viable and will lead to a life-threatening condition. I'm not arguing for or against anything here, I'm just pointing out the lines of what I see as likely future debate.

[wufan]

What does, then?

I believe it is the unique DNA that makes an INDIVIDUAL a person with unalienable rights.

That doesn’t change the fact that we must make hard decisions on behalf of those individuals (unborn or of advanced age) who’s heart is not beating.

[wufan]

I don't think there will ever be full agreement on that. However, I don't think we have even tried to come to a reasonable compromise on that point in this country. That probably needs to be the starting point before we attempt to legislate this issue. I don't think abortion is going away so we need to come to some reasonable compromise.

The things is we know so much more about the development of the life in the womb now than we did in 1973 when Roe vs Wade was decided. I don't think we even had sonograms yet at that time.

Here is a video titled Life Before Birth - In The Womb that my wife and I watched a couple of weeks ago. It's long. An hour and 42 minutes but I learned a lot of things form watching this.

My compromise is the following:

Birth control and the morning after pill should be as cheap and readily available as possible.

Any fertilization that occurs outside the uterus may/must be terminated at any time.

Genetic diseases that will cause neonatal death or severe physical/mental retardation should be defined and laws should be put in place allowing or disallowing abortion based on severity and gestational age at diagnosis.

Allow the mother to terminate ANY pregnancy AFTER 32 weeks as long as she gives up all rights to the child delivered through C-Section.

[1972Shocker]

My compromise is the following:

Birth control and the morning after pill should be as cheap and readily available as possible.

Any fertilization that occurs outside the uterus may/must be terminated at any time.

Genetic diseases that will cause neonatal death or severe physical/mental retardation should be defined and laws should be put in place allowing or disallowing abortion based on severity and gestational age at diagnosis.

Allow the mother to terminate ANY pregnancy AFTER 32 weeks as long as she gives up all rights to the child delivered through C-Section.

Not bad. I would have no issue with your first 3 points. So your saying abortion okay up to 32 weeks in your 4th point? That might be too liberal for me.

Is that the point that you feel the child is endowed with human rights?

[wufan]

Not bad. I would have no issue with your first 3 points. So your saying abortion okay up to 32 weeks in your 4th point? That might be too liberal for me.

Is that the point that you feel the child is endowed with human rights?

No! Right to terminate a pregnancy AFTER 32 weeks via a live birth C-section delivery. No reason you have to kill a child when you terminate a pregnancy.

Don’t want that baby in there no more? No problem, we will remove them and make sure they get a good home! Read it again I think you will agree with point four as well.

[1972Shocker]

No! Right to terminate a pregnancy AFTER 32 weeks via a live birth C-section delivery. No reason you have to kill a child when you terminate a pregnancy.

Don’t want that baby in there no more? No problem, we will remove them and make sure they get a good home! Read it again I think you will agree with point four as well.

Okay, I see where your coming from but I doubt the pro-abortion side would consider that a reasonable compromise without some abortion on demand allowed. Say first 15-20 weeks.

Without some kind of compromise we would never get any national legislation leaving that up to the states where many states will allow abortion up to birth (and some beyond). So what would have been accomplished.

If there was some compromise that could be reached it should not allow any public funding of abortions or organizations that support abortion and it should not allow trafficking in fetal tissue.

[Kung Wu]

This may sound like a technicality, but while murder is killing, killing is not murder. Murder is the unlawful, premeditated killing of one human being by another. There are many forms of killing that either are lawful or aren't premeditated. War, execution, accident, many actions by police, self defense, defense of another, etc.

The argument would not stop at a codified definition of life, and it wouldn't start the presumption of murder. For instance, an ectopic pregnancy can develop to the point of having a heartbeat, but any medical professional would advise disregarding the legal rights a codified definition of life might grant because the pregnancy is still not viable and will lead to a life-threatening condition. I'm not arguing for or against anything here, I'm just pointing out the lines of what I see as likely future debate.

To your point that killing in self defense is not murder. Aborting an ectopic pregnancy would use a similar (but obviously different) line of reasoning and morality. The medical procedure is defensive, and necessary, to save a life. It also comes down to the well established scientific and moral protocol of triage.

[wufan]

Okay, I see where your coming from but I doubt the pro-abortion side would consider that a reasonable compromise without some abortion on demand allowed. Say first 15-20 weeks.

Without some kind of compromise we would never get any national legislation leaving that up to the states where many states will allow abortion up to birth (and some beyond). So what would have been accomplished.

If there was some compromise that could be reached it should not allow any public funding of abortions or organizations that support abortion and it should not allow trafficking in fetal tissue.

I’m not in office, so those are MY moral compromises.

Homicide of an already born human is illegal except in cases of unavoidable accidents and self defense. I feel that denying the life of an individual is wrong and to compromise on that is wrong.

My above statements allow for the privacy and choice of the mother in EVERY conceivable situation. If that’s not good enough for them, then may god have mercy on their soul and the soul of their victims.

[Kung Wu]

I believe it is the unique DNA that makes an INDIVIDUAL a person with unalienable rights.

My dead hair carries my DNA, even when shed from my body. Existence of DNA is necessary but not sufficient.

[wufan]

My dead hair carries my DNA, even when shed from my body. Existence of DNA is necessary but not sufficient.

Rights are not granted to cells, dead or alive, they are inherent to individuals.

My issue with calling it a life with the beating heart is that the beating heart is not sufficient to sustain life. Additionally, being born is not enough to sustain life nor does it unburden the woman; therefore, I reject those preconditions as necessary to obtain rights. The DNA is what makes the person an individual.

With that, I would ask, why does a heart beat (especially when the mothers blood still pulses through the child) make a baby an individual?