Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/ ... ortion-ban" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A federal appeals court struck down one of the nation's toughest abortion restrictions on Wednesday, ruling that women would be unconstitutionally burdened by an Arkansas law that bans abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy if a doctor can detect a fetal heartbeat.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with doctors who challenged the law, ruling that abortion restrictions must be based on a fetus' ability to live outside the womb, not the presence of a fetal heartbeat that can be detected weeks earlier. The court said that standard was established by previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

dbackjon wrote:http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/ ... ortion-ban

A federal appeals court struck down one of the nation's toughest abortion restrictions on Wednesday, ruling that women would be unconstitutionally burdened by an Arkansas law that bans abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy if a doctor can detect a fetal heartbeat.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with doctors who challenged the law, ruling that abortion restrictions must be based on a fetus' ability to live outside the womb, not the presence of a fetal heartbeat that can be detected weeks earlier. The court said that standard was established by previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

20 weeks is where reasonable people can communicate like adults on the topic
it'll be interesting to watch the reactions

It's murder. Period

Justify it how you want but you are killing life

Fed govt sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong, usurping the will of a state..

abortion restrictions must be based on a fetus' ability to live outside the womb

Why? Seriously, this is like this big thing in the abortion controversy and it's absurd. So you have to demonstrate that an organism has to survive outside of the environment in which it is suited to survive?

This is one of the stupidest things our court system ever came up with. Among other things it's not fixed. Whether or not a fetus at a given stage of development can survive outside of the womb or not was a different question in 1915 than it is in 2015 and it'll be a different question in the future. The point at which an unborn individual can survive outside of the womb will change as medical technology advances. So what the hell are courts doing using THAT as a criterion for deciding whether or not an individual has a right to live or not?

Beyond that it's not even relevant. There is absolutely no reason to have that as a criterion.

Why people have the faith they do in our Judiciary is totally beyond me.

Well, JSO actually does have a point in this - as medical science continues to advance and improve, the milestone for which a fetus can live outside the womb gets less and less. 100 years ago 34 weeks would have been a miracle. 50 years ago 30 weeks. 25 years ago a baby couldn't hope to live at just 25 weeks. And today a baby born at 20 weeks can live outside the womb. Logically, at some point, the baby won't ever have to be in the womb, it's just a question as to how soon we get there. Then the whole debate will take a different turn. No one denies, or at least can do so logically, that a fetus is just an early step in human life, the only thing mucking it up now is our scientific inability to know how to save them. But science does advance, always.

GannonFan wrote:Well, JSO actually does have a point in this - as medical science continues to advance and improve, the milestone for which a fetus can live outside the womb gets less and less. 100 years ago 34 weeks would have been a miracle. 50 years ago 30 weeks. 25 years ago a baby couldn't hope to live at just 25 weeks. And today a baby born at 20 weeks can live outside the womb. Logically, at some point, the baby won't ever have to be in the womb, it's just a question as to how soon we get there. Then the whole debate will take a different turn. No one denies, or at least can do so logically, that a fetus is just an early step in human life, the only thing mucking it up now is our scientific inability to know how to save them. But science does advance, always.

Science will advance.

500 years from now, or 2,000 years from now, whatever it takes...we will know if a mother drinks too much and harms the child in her womb. Yes, we will. Will we then charge her with manslaughter?

If you are a crack addict, and you get someone pregnant with a damaged sperm, and the child dies in the womb because of your addiction...will you be charged with manslaughter?

As fetuses gain rights with medical advances...right up until the moment of conception, and possibly before, how will we react with our laws?

If it can be proven (and it will, with technological advances) that your behavior and choices directly impact your child's condition (before, during, or after conception), how will those issues be resolved?

It is coming. Yes it is.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:It's murder. Period

Justify it how you want but you are killing life

Just like castle doctrine.

Stand your ground

Vidav wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:It's murder. Period

Justify it how you want but you are killing life

Just like castle doctrine.

Alpacajiz

Vidav wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:It's murder. Period

Justify it how you want but you are killing life

Just like castle doctrine.

100% wrong

The fetus has no choice to break into your house and give you the option to defend yourself (Unless you are in Missoula)

Chizzang wrote:

dbackjon wrote:http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/ ... ortion-ban

A federal appeals court struck down one of the nation's toughest abortion restrictions on Wednesday, ruling that women would be unconstitutionally burdened by an Arkansas law that bans abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy if a doctor can detect a fetal heartbeat.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with doctors who challenged the law, ruling that abortion restrictions must be based on a fetus' ability to live outside the womb, not the presence of a fetal heartbeat that can be detected weeks earlier. The court said that standard was established by previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

20 weeks is where reasonable people can communicate like adults on the topic
it'll be interesting to watch the reactions

I'm on board with the 20 weeks- and if the ever evolving science shows fetal pain and suffering at an earlier stage I would probably change my thinking

But you're wrong about the adult conversation happening at the 20 week mark- the shrill pro abortion set vastly out numbers the earth is 6000 years old set

You yourself have bought into their false flag that this is only a woman's issue

Chizzang wrote:20 weeks is where reasonable people can communicate like adults on the topic
it'll be interesting to watch the reactions

So speaketh King Cleetsang

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
20 weeks is where reasonable people can communicate like adults on the topic
it'll be interesting to watch the reactions

I'm on board with the 20 weeks- and if the ever evolving science shows fetal pain and suffering at an earlier stage I would probably change my thinking

But you're wrong about the adult conversation happening at the 20 week mark- the shrill pro abortion set vastly out numbers the earth is 6000 years old set

You yourself have bought into their false flag that this is only a woman's issue

You'd understand more if you could get pregnant.

Cluck U wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Well, JSO actually does have a point in this - as medical science continues to advance and improve, the milestone for which a fetus can live outside the womb gets less and less. 100 years ago 34 weeks would have been a miracle. 50 years ago 30 weeks. 25 years ago a baby couldn't hope to live at just 25 weeks. And today a baby born at 20 weeks can live outside the womb. Logically, at some point, the baby won't ever have to be in the womb, it's just a question as to how soon we get there. Then the whole debate will take a different turn. No one denies, or at least can do so logically, that a fetus is just an early step in human life, the only thing mucking it up now is our scientific inability to know how to save them. But science does advance, always.

Science will advance.

500 years from now, or 2,000 years from now, whatever it takes...we will know if a mother drinks too much and harms the child in her womb. Yes, we will. Will we then charge her with manslaughter?

If you are a crack addict, and you get someone pregnant with a damaged sperm, and the child dies in the womb because of your addiction...will you be charged with manslaughter?

As fetuses gain rights with medical advances...right up until the moment of conception, and possibly before, how will we react with our laws?

If it can be proven (and it will, with technological advances) that your behavior and choices directly impact your child's condition (before, during, or after conception), how will those issues be resolved?

It is coming. Yes it is.

I'm sensing we're getting to a point where babies aren't grown inside the womb but rather a tank or some artificial womb - takes a lot of those above questions out of play, eliminates the idea of the woman's body holding sway over the baby's life, and probably other things. Science fiction tends to become actual science and it's not hard to see this going this direction, and maybe even soon. Maybe not our lifetime but not much beyond that.

Women are not smart enough to buy nachos at a gas station let alone make life and death decisions.

D1B wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I'm on board with the 20 weeks- and if the ever evolving science shows fetal pain and suffering at an earlier stage I would probably change my thinking

But you're wrong about the adult conversation happening at the 20 week mark- the shrill pro abortion set vastly out numbers the earth is 6000 years old set

You yourself have bought into their false flag that this is only a woman's issue

You'd understand more if you could get pregnant.

No D, I wouldnt

Because I choose to be ruled by logic over emotion -

emotion is the prime mover behind every bad policy, law or decision that has ever been made in the history of humankind

you're in thrall to a false argument

CID1990 wrote:

D1B wrote:
You'd understand more if you could get pregnant.

No D, I wouldnt

Because I choose to be ruled by logic over emotion -

emotion is the prime mover behind every bad policy, law or decision that has ever been made in the history of humankind

you're in thrall to a false argument

You weren't born without a limbic system. You just hide it well ya big baby.

D1B wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I'm on board with the 20 weeks- and if the ever evolving science shows fetal pain and suffering at an earlier stage I would probably change my thinking

But you're wrong about the adult conversation happening at the 20 week mark- the shrill pro abortion set vastly out numbers the earth is 6000 years old set

You yourself have bought into their false flag that this is only a woman's issue

You'd understand more if you could get pregnant.

Are you kidding me?

Once most chicks gets pregnant, they can't understand a damned thing. Take poker night...most chicks don't understand poker night. Sure, maybe the kind of poker that got them pregnant in the first place...but we're talking about beer drinking, music, and cards. In that case, and many more, people understand considerably less when they get pregnant.

This debate is ultimately about where to draw the damn line...
the disagreement is so strong on both sides there can't be any "logical" conversations
as nice as that would be

Where is THE LINE

Chizzang wrote:This debate is ultimately about where to draw the damn line...
the disagreement is so strong on both sides there can't be any "logical" conversations
as nice as that would be

Where is THE LINE

We can never know for sure

we know where the line is beyond which a fetus is certainly viable and can feel pain and suffer- thats fairly certain beyond 20 weeks

we also know that sometime before that, a fetus is not viable and cannot feel pain- almost certainly before 13 weeks

ultimately we are wrestling over what is ultimately about an 8 week period

but I do believe that the real fundamental difference in the two sides is that one is very gifted at dehumanizing others - and that is the central tenet of the pro abortion crowd. They have to dehumanize the unborn- they have no choice- in fact they take it even one step further- they do not even acknowledge the unborn other than to describe them as a "condition" unique to women. So when you come at it from that point of view, there can be no difference between a 5 week old embryo and a 26 week old infant. And this is why many of them fight for abortion without restrictions and oppose THE LINE no matter where it may be in reality

there's also those who oppose abortion solely because somewhere in the bible it must say "thou shalt not visit planned parenthood as a patient" and although that's equally specious to me, they do hold the moral high ground on this one

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:This debate is ultimately about where to draw the damn line...
the disagreement is so strong on both sides there can't be any "logical" conversations
as nice as that would be

Where is THE LINE

We can never know for sure

we know where the line is beyond which a fetus is certainly viable and can feel pain and suffer- thats fairly certain beyond 20 weeks

we also know that sometime before that, a fetus is not viable and cannot feel pain- almost certainly before 13 weeks

ultimately we are wrestling over what is ultimately about an 8 week period

but I do believe that the real fundamental difference in the two sides is that one is very gifted at dehumanizing others - and that is the central tenet of the pro abortion crowd. They have to dehumanize the unborn- they have no choice- in fact they take it even one step further- they do not even acknowledge the unborn other than to describe them as a "condition" unique to women. So when you come at it from that point of view, there can be no difference between a 5 week old embryo and a 26 week old infant. And this is why many of them fight for abortion without restrictions and oppose THE LINE no matter where it may be in reality

there's also those who oppose abortion solely because somewhere in the bible it must say "thou shalt not visit planned parenthood as a patient" and although that's equally specious to me, they do hold the moral high ground on this one

What's "Moral High Ground" when the books of the Bible are Cherry Picked?
The Bible: It is or it is not... But that's for another conversation

And since when did "dehumanizing" matter in America..?
See:
Native American History
See Black History
Today: See Islam

This whole idea that dehumanizing is something odd and unacceptable is a little dismissive
In principal I agree with you - but when exactly does is matter..?
And why just now on this topic does it matter
and not tomorrow when we talk about the Middle East?

At least Cluck has the honesty to say it plainly
We either care about human lives or we do not (see: Middle East for your answer)
but this on again / off again sliding morality works against you

whoa nellie

youve got a whole lot going on in there

Im not saying the religious types have the moral high ground because of their religion- rather i think the "moral" high ground is not religion based- it just happens that on this issue, the religious position is the moral one, but I arrive at the same conclusions without any religious conviction

I never asserted that dehumanizing people is anomalous- we do it every time we go to war, execute a criminal, or reading the crime blotter in the newspaper

finally, we do and I do dehumanize savages re: your comparison to the middle east. Youre simply repackaging the old "conservatives are against abortion but fir the death penalty" argument but even fancying it up it still doesnt work- the difference is innocence. a human fetus is innocent and therefore in my own insignificant opinion i oppose killing it for convenience. When it comes to some murderous ISIL brute I have no issue with having death and destruction visited on him- especially in the interest of protecting the innocent. If I were coming at it from a religious sense (thou shalt to kill) then yeah- the two would be unreconcilable

i dont lose any sleep over my own position and I dont feel that it is dichotomous at all

CID1990 wrote:whoa nellie

youve got a whole lot going on in there

Im not saying the religious types have the moral high ground because of their religion- rather i think the "moral" high ground is not religion based- it just happens that on this issue, the religious position is the moral one, but I arrive at the same conclusions without any religious conviction

I never asserted that dehumanizing people is anomalous- we do it every time we go to war, execute a criminal, or reading the crime blotter in the newspaper

finally, we do and I do dehumanize savages re: your comparison to the middle east. Youre simply repackaging the old "conservatives are against abortion but fir the death penalty" argument but even fancying it up it still doesnt work- the difference is innocence. a human fetus is innocent and therefore in my own insignificant opinion i oppose killing it for convenience. When it comes to some murderous ISIL brute I have no issue with having death and destruction visited on him- especially in the interest of protecting the innocent. If I were coming at it from a religious sense (thou shalt to kill) then yeah- the two would be unreconcilable

i dont lose any sleep over my own position and I dont feel that it is dichotomous at all

I'm not talking about ISIL
I'm talking about the innocent children of the middle east
You know - the ones in the 20th month term not the 20th week

I have no problem with your opinion
and you are one of VERY FEW interesting and thoughtful people on this forum
in regards to the Abortion Topic

We kill innocents around the globe without a moments thought
we justify it in a thousand ways
and no matter how innocent an American fetus is
why is it more important than a little brown baby..?

I know the answer: Its NOT

and everybody in the Anti-Abortion camp
anxiously explains away any debate once the fetus is crawling around outside
Even thought IT TOO IS INNOCENT

The day I see Texas pastors picketing Lockheed Martin
the week after they march on Planned Parent hood - You'll have my attention

As it stands right now: Innocent - as a drawing card - is not really that important apparently

Same old same old. The only objective line is conception. Before there is no existence. Afterwards a living member of our species exists. All of the other stuff is based on subjective opinion of what makes a member of our species "human" or "a person" or something like that.

And to me that's an irony of the abortion controversy. People say that those who are "pro-life" are imposing their beliefs. But the people who say that are imposing their beliefs about what makes a member of our species "a person" or "human" or something like that on living members of our species. They're saying, "They don't meet MY definition of what a 'person' is so it's OK to kill them as a matter of convenience."

Like saying whether or not a member of our species can feel pain somehow makes the difference. Why? That's just a totally arbitrary thing. You're sanctioning killing a living individual. It's not a "potential" life. It's a living animal. It's already a life. And it's been a life since genetic recombination was complete at conception.

That's very inconvenient for us. But it's the reality.