Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday May 03 2018, @06:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the how-many-women-voted? dept.

Iowa approves one of strictest abortion bills in US

The US state of Iowa has approved one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, banning most abortions once a foetal heartbeat is detected. Republican lawmakers, who control both chambers, passed the bill in back-to-back votes, sending it to the governor's desk to sign into law.

If [signed], the bill would ban most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. Critics argue the bill makes having an abortion illegal before most women even realise they are pregnant.

[...] If [Governor Kim] Reynolds signs the bill into law, it will likely be challenged in court for possibly violating Roe v Wade, the US Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in 1973. [...] Some Republican lawmakers welcomed the challenge. "I would love for the United States Supreme Court to look at this bill and have this as a vehicle to overturn Roe v. Wade," Republican Senator Jake Chapman said.

Also at NPR, Reuters, the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier, and The Hill:

Nineteen states adopted a total of 63 restrictions to the procedure in 2017, which is the highest number of state laws on the issue since 2013, according to the Guttmacher Institute. State legislatures have proposed 15 bills that would ban abortions after 20 weeks and 11 bills that would ban abortions if the sole reason is a genetic anomaly like Down syndrome.

Related: Ohio Bill Would Ban Abortion when a Prenatal Test is Positive for Down Syndrome
These 9 Places in America Will Pay You to Move There


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @06:52PM (48 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @06:52PM (#675225)

    By that logic, anybody who would die without help (somebody drowning in the pool, somebody on oxygen, you name it) is a non-person.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Flamebait=1, Troll=1, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:06PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:06PM (#675233)

    No, but thanks for trying.

    Once born/viable, personage cannot be taken away. The discussion is when personage begins.

    Are you male or female? Would you like to be told that a parasite cannot be removed from your body, despite being easily within the scope of medical ability and having major life-changing implications, because a legislature dominated by the opposite gender said so?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:12PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:12PM (#675242)

      You're tying survivability to personhood, without rational basis. I'm pointing out that's an irrational and inconsistent opinion.

      • (Score: 3, Disagree) by fyngyrz on Thursday May 03 2018, @10:43PM (2 children)

        by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday May 03 2018, @10:43PM (#675374) Journal

        You're tying survivability to personhood

        Yes, that's basically what Roe v. Wade does.

        Personally, I think the metric — the line in the sand — is probably best set as to when the fetus develops a nervous system with a brain. Not a heartbeat. It's our brain that (eventually) makes us people.

        I laugh (sadly) at the "life begins at conception" advocates. A blade of grass is alive. It's not life that is, or should be, cherished, it's life with potential. You, a child, a fetus that's well on the way: sure. The grass, an apple seed, a human seed, a barely-differentiated clump of cells, no.

        And quite aside from that:

        • Don't conceive unwanted children. Condoms aren't good enough, certainly not by themselves.
        • Don't drink and park. Accidents cause babies.
        • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @11:00PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @11:00PM (#675382)

          Nope. Development of a neural crest/tissue may seem reasonable to someone not well versed in human anatomy/embryology, but no. Also we can and do easily keep neurons alive in a petri dish for study, so I guess you'd also want to shut down all of those avenues of inquiry?

          The actual neural development that happens in utero is really not very significant. Babies are born with a mostly undeveloped brain much smoother than their adult, actually functional brains. Also, the vast majority of the neurons aren't myelinated, nor have proper connections. Babies suck, sleep, pee, and poop. Newborns aren't just missing language, they're missing tremendous structural components crucial to becoming actual functional people. What I'm saying here, is that a brain doesn't make a person.

          The key, though, is that they have the potential for all of this - and that they no longer require extreme measures of support from exactly one individual. You can hand a newborn to a different person for their care, and it will continue to develop.

          You cannot transplant a fetus into another womb. The owner of that womb has innate agency over it.

          • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday May 05 2018, @10:18AM

            by fyngyrz (6567) on Saturday May 05 2018, @10:18AM (#676031) Journal

            I agree the owner of the womb has (okay, should have) innate agency over it. Always.

            However, I go from "yeah, so what" to "oh, that's a damned shame" when you have a developing brain. That's what would stop me — assuming I had the choice — from going for an abortion.

            I didn't mean to imply that anyone but the woman should be the one making that choice. I can see that it very much looks like I did. My bad. Tired writing.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @02:06AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @02:06AM (#675432)

        I don't know about them, but I think the woman should be able to terminate the pregnancy at any point, since it's her body. Therefore, to me, Roe v. Wade is insufficient.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @05:18PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @05:18PM (#676093)

      Human fetuses aren't parasites. Babies even after born can't survive without someone else's help. Many adults can't survive without someone else's help.

      Our tech is improving. What if the fetus or even fertilized egg could survive till full term in an artificial womb?

      Thus saying the line should be drawn at birth or at viability is as arbitrary as drawing it at conception or heart beat.

      As for those hypothetical scenarios about rescuing toddlers vs frozen embryos from a fire. The main reason why I'd rescue a toddler over the embryos is because I'd get in trouble with the other pesky humans if I don't. For example if one of the embryos was special in some way - special healing factor (not retarded), I would personally prefer to rescue the embryo over a typical mediocre toddler. And if it is a particularly annoying toddler I'd prefer to save a random non-special embryo.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by aristarchus on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:13PM (39 children)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:13PM (#675244) Journal

    You need to read Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion" [wikipedia.org], where the analogy is to someone kidnapped and forced to provide a direct transfusion to a "Famous Violinist" who is dying, for a period of nine months. This really is all about controlling women, involuntary servitude, procreative slavery. If you had to save someone from drowning for nine months, your point might have some relevance. A right to life is not absolute, and does not entail, for example, the sacrifice of the lives of others to save yours. Nice if they volunteer, but you cannot coerce this.

    • (Score: -1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:20PM (22 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:20PM (#675254)

      The mother already volunteered to do so when she got pregnant.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:21PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:21PM (#675257)

        lol!

      • (Score: 2, Troll) by aristarchus on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:38PM (1 child)

        by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:38PM (#675265) Journal

        So did the "sperm donor"! I say we put it in him, instead! Men's Rights! (to pregnancy! Yeah!!!) In fact, maybe we should just put the developing human being in you, since we can't, in this particular instance we have before us, find said donor, and the fetus has an absolute right to life! Grab 'im, boys! Set up the Operating Theatre! We got a "live one"!!

        Seriously, if we can be such with slavers and Incels and Trump Evangelical Demon Worshippers, this could be a basis for limiting abortion to a certain time frame. If a woman stays pregnant for months after learning she is pregnant, there is a tacit agreement and consent? So to change one's mind at the last minute, so to speak, might not be right. But retro-active abortion? I always say you should at least wait and see how the kid turns out, and don't make a rash decision, but instead decide whether to take them out when they are 18-19, and you find them in an alt-right march.

        • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @08:10PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @08:10PM (#675282)

          Slam...slam...slam...

          A slamming sound could be heard. Anyone who heard this sound would recognize it immediately; it was the sound of justice! As the man's clenched fist pummeled the woman's face, his tears grew larger. A crunching sound rang out, and the man stopped. "Finally", he thought to himself, wiping away his tears of joy, "Finally, I have shown them all their true place". The man, now liberated, stood up and left the alleyway, which contained a few dozen female corpses with their skulls caved in. Today, freedom defeated tyranny.

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday May 03 2018, @09:44PM (18 children)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 03 2018, @09:44PM (#675336) Journal

        What if the mother didn't volunteer to get pregnant?

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @10:02PM (17 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @10:02PM (#675350)

          Is there some kind of right to have sex without getting pregnant? Hint: there isn't.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @10:15PM (9 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @10:15PM (#675356)

            You are correct, there is no such right. However that doesn't seem to much matter to rapists, and given that 20%+ of women have been raped at some point in their lives you should probably check your bullshit.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @12:43AM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @12:43AM (#675403)

              20%... Your laughable statistic suggests you are transgender twit.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @12:54AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @12:54AM (#675405)

                transgender twit

                Since there's nothing wrong with being transgender, let's focus on the twit part. Better to be a twit than a worthless piece of shit like yourself.

                Now, if you don't mind, please go play a nice game of hide and go fuck yourself. Thanks! :)

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @04:08AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @04:08AM (#675480)

                See thing is most rapes aren't the mugged in the street variety, most are a date that takes advantage and many women just bury it as a shameful event. I see what level of discourse you have, the "I only believe what is right, thus what is right is what I believe."

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @10:37AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @10:37AM (#675575)

                Approx 20% of the world is muslim so thats probably a minimum

            • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday May 04 2018, @08:55AM (4 children)

              by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 04 2018, @08:55AM (#675547) Journal

              given that 20%+ of women have been raped

              It is not a given - citation please from a credible source.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @10:41AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @10:41AM (#675576)
                • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday May 04 2018, @05:23PM

                  by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 04 2018, @05:23PM (#675748) Journal

                  So the citation that you gave claims nearly 1 in 5 - which is a terrible state of affairs but is not 20%+. So the exaggeration of the original claim was for what reason? Why shouldn't the true figures be sufficient enough to make the argument?

                  Another response to my question gave the following as a cite: https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence [rainn.org] but that only goes as far as 1 in 6 women being raped. Now there is a 6% difference in those reports, so it seems to me that the figure might lie somewhere between the 2 values claimed. Again, this is an unacceptable figure of which any nation should be ashamed but even this figure would have been good enough to make the case. It does not require any fudging to make the argument more credible.

                  It hardly gives me any faith in the arguments that are presented if the argument is made with distorted figures. It does suggest that someone has another agenda to push when I see inaccurate claims being made.

              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @10:53AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @10:53AM (#675581)
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @11:30AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @11:30AM (#675593)

                  I feel sick after reading that

          • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday May 03 2018, @10:16PM (2 children)

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday May 03 2018, @10:16PM (#675357)

            Is there some kind of right to have sex without getting pregnant? Hint: there isn't.

            Care to explain further? I'm unsure what you're arguing. Are you saying that women get pregnant every time they have sex?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @02:10AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @02:10AM (#675434)

            There's also no right to reside in someone else's body against their will, even to keep yourself alive.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @10:55AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @10:55AM (#675582)

              Most guys pull out when theyre done but this 'must keep it in her to keep myself alive' is new
              some sort of movie plot perhaps?

          • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday May 04 2018, @03:46AM (1 child)

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 04 2018, @03:46AM (#675472) Journal

            What if the mother did not volunteer to have sex?

            Is there some right to have sex even if she says "No"?

            --
            People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:24PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:24PM (#675260)

      The mother already volunteered to do exactly that when she got pregnant. There being a point where it's too late to change your mind is not the same as slavery.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:27PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:27PM (#675262)

        *sigh* Very well...

        lol!

      • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday May 03 2018, @08:21PM (1 child)

        by NewNic (6420) on Thursday May 03 2018, @08:21PM (#675287) Journal

        So you are in favor of indentured servitude?

        --
        lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @01:30AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @01:30AM (#675416)

          There's no need to bring taxes into this. Stay on topic.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @08:54AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @08:54AM (#675546)

        Hey... Isn't it well known by now that women have a God-Given "right" to change their minds, no matter what they "agreed" to ?

        You know playing around with this is like playing around with a pen on a contract. Sign it and you are committed.

        Don't women recognize (what) a pen is ?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @08:30PM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @08:30PM (#675291)

      It's all very simple. Pregnancy is a temporary condition. Aside from real medical issues, abortion is a cosmetic procedure. Laws and insurance rates should be adjusted accordingly.

      Yes, until we can grow babies in the lab, women are slaves to biology. That's the only way to put it. The species doesn't survive any other way. Take the issue up with your favored deity.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by pe1rxq on Thursday May 03 2018, @08:48PM (3 children)

        by pe1rxq (844) on Thursday May 03 2018, @08:48PM (#675298) Homepage

        At 7 billion our species (and the world we live on) could use a few abortions....

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @09:20AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @09:20AM (#675550)

          The real heart-breaker for me is unwanted babies. Especially unwanted drug babies or malformed babies.

          Is it better to bring a child into being, unwanted, a ward of the state, or should I be given the authority to decide its fate?

          None of the above appeals to me.

          I would suggest women be careful playing around with the baby factory until they are sure they want one.

          Unless they too want to be burdened with decisions like this.

          Incidentally, I have seen my momma-cat make these very same decisions, and I believe the very same God that fomented my existence also fomented the existence of that cat... and that cat - by instinct - has to do what it has to do. Momma-cat has done some "heartless" things, but so will the hawk. Its nature.

          There are many things beyond my wisdom or knowledge, and I must accept that. I am not judge, jury, and executioner over such things, neither do I want authority ( and the responsibility that comes with it) over it either.

        • (Score: 2) by VLM on Friday May 04 2018, @01:58PM (1 child)

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 04 2018, @01:58PM (#675652)

          A hilarious modern and hot New Right troll is to trigger Old Leftists who are fundamentally primarily racist anti-white haters, by pointing out blacks are far over twice as likely to abort than whites, so in an absolute sense abortion is quite a horrific slaughter of the innocents but in a relative racial sense, abortion laws are supporting the white race and genociding the black race. Meanwhile for a few decades abortion has been a sacrament of the weird progressive religion of leftism. And cognitive dissonance makes white-hating leftists absolutely blow their tops hyper triggered into insanity. And it really pisses off the Blacks because once again the Jews (as the Left) are screwing over the Blacks for the zillionth time.

          The Old Right was focused on "muh jesus" or "whatever supports Israel, our greatest ally" as exclusive priorities, so they were anti-abortion, but modern New Right is like "the left has killed three times as many supposedly leftist allied black babies as Hitler killed Jews despite the Old Right's opposition... just sayin maybe we should fight them on a different battle...".

          Of course as black folks such as Kayne slowly escape the Democratic slave Plantation, this is probably going to tilt New Right perspectives as future right wing black leaders are not going to be amused at a genocide that has killed three times as many of their people as Hitler killed. The imaginary straw dog hollywood fiction anti-semite has always been Germanic, but the real world future concentration camp guards are probably going to be Black men wearing Nation of Islam uniforms.

          I'm going to guess that as the left sunsets and melts down, its going to be a pretty uncomfortable position to be in, in near future decades.

          I mean, regardless how much anyone likes or dislikes my political analysis above, its really not open to argument that in the boomer era abortion was all about leftists feeling good in the sexual revolution, but post-AIDS post-RedPill upcoming generations merely see racists genociding 20 million little black babies...

          • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @04:01PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @04:01PM (#675706)

            This is hilarious, VLM trying to play the race card. Go fuck yourself you racist douche.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @09:05PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @09:05PM (#675310)

        Right-o! I'll go ask KALI-ma, right away!!! Thanks for the suggestion!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @10:59AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @10:59AM (#675584)

        How the frick is 16+ years *temporary*?!?!?
        Sure you can pass it off to someone else after it pops out but for most of us it goes on and on for years

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by crafoo on Friday May 04 2018, @03:25AM (2 children)

      by crafoo (6639) on Friday May 04 2018, @03:25AM (#675464)

      >A right to life is not absolute, and does not entail, for example, the sacrifice of the lives of others to save yours.

      Selective Service.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @04:15PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @04:15PM (#675712)

        Should be abolished. And the government should have no power to conscript people at all, ever.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @06:57PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @06:57PM (#675809)

          We're coming for your Capital Gains, Chuck! And then, may we 'ave your Liver?

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @12:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @12:49PM (#675620)

      This really is all about controlling women, involuntary servitude, procreative slavery

      How is this about controlling women? They can keep their fucking legs closed. Nowhere is sex required for you to survive. If you don't want to be pregnant, don't fuck around.

      I'm really getting sick of the retards in this thread. And just because I'm not even a nihilist I could allow a form of abortion once technology becomes available. We take your fucking uterus out and bring the baby to term outside "your body", and no you don't fucking get it back. You had a shot at being responsible with it, you are done.

  • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday May 03 2018, @10:28PM

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Thursday May 03 2018, @10:28PM (#675364) Journal

    In space, no one can hear you scream be a person?

    Is that what moon landing hoaxers really think? That's got to be the ultimate technicality! Because the astronauts were on oxygen and therefore not people when they visited, no person has actually visited the moon!