Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by janrinok on Thursday May 03, @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

Related Stories

Ohio Bill Would Ban Abortion when a Prenatal Test is Positive for Down Syndrome 112 comments

http://www.pressherald.com/2017/09/24/ohio-bill-would-bar-abortion-when-prenatal-test-is-positive-for-down-syndrome/

an Ohio bill [would] ban abortions in cases where a pregnant woman has had a positive test result or prenatal diagnosis indicating Down syndrome. Physicians convicted of performing an abortion under such circumstances could be charged with a fourth-degree felony, stripped of their medical license and held liable for legal damages. The pregnant woman would face no criminal liability.

Several other states have considered similar measures, triggering emotional debate over women's rights, parental love, and the trust between doctor and patient.

The Ohio bill's chief Senate sponsor, Republican Sen. Frank LaRose, said Republican lawmakers accelerated the measure after hearing a mid-August CBS News report on Iceland's high rate of abortions in cases involving Down syndrome. The report asserted Iceland had come close to "eradicating" such births.

These 9 Places in America Will Pay You to Move There 47 comments

They'll pay you upfront, but will you pay for the rest of your life?

While 54% of Americans lived in rural places in 1910, that number fell to 19 percent by 2010, Zillow reported. To revive their communities, these places are hoping that everything from cash grants to paying off student loans and giving away free land will help draw a younger generation to them.

But it's not just small towns that hope to draw more people to them with these programs. Some cities like Baltimore and even entire states like Alaska will pay you to be their newest resident.

Tribune, Kansas will pay off $15,000 of your student loans. Marne, Iowa will give you free land if you build a house that's at least 1,200 ft2 on it. Baltimore, Maryland will give you a $5,000, 5yr forgivable loan and $10,000 down payment toward rehabilitating abandoned homes.

Tempted?


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.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @06:50PM (74 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @06:50PM (#675224)

    Before you reply, go read the actual Roe v. Wade decision. This remains among the best SCOTUS rulings, it's very clear. Here is the primary holding, in full:

    "A person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Viability means the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception."

    Put differently, the mother's will overrules the fetus until the time when the fetus could survive without the mother. As medical technology advances that threshold has moved up a bit, probably 22-26 weeks for most centers.

    It baffles me that conservatives line up against abortion, then can turn right around and with a straight face utter lines like "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." How does the mother's right to host or not host this life-changing ball of cells not lie solely in her court, until said ball of cells could make it on its own? It's so obvious that this should - indeed must - be the correct line in the sand. Any other position requires severe cognitive dissonance.

    A fetus, before it is viable without the mother's support, is not a person. Full stop.

    This bill tries to introduce a completely ridiculous new standard based on heart rate, spitting in the face of medical science and all existing case law. All the legislators of Iowa have done is cost the state a bunch of legal fees. Consider that the next time your representatives are up for election, Iowans.

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @06:52PM (48 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @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.

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

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

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @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, @10:43PM (2 children)

            by fyngyrz (6567) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 03, @10:43PM (#675374) Homepage 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.
            --
            The eyes are the windows to the soul.
            Sunglasses are the window shades.
            • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @11:00PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @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, @10:18AM

                by fyngyrz (6567) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 05, @10:18AM (#676031) Homepage 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.

                --
                The eyes are the windows to the soul.
                Sunglasses are the window shades.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @02:06AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @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, @05:18PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05, @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, @07:13PM (39 children)

        by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday May 03, @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.

        --
        #Free{nick}_NOW!!!
        • (Score: -1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @07:20PM (22 children)

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

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

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

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

            lol!

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

            by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday May 03, @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.

            --
            #Free{nick}_NOW!!!
            • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @08:10PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @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, @09:44PM (18 children)

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

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

            --
            ALL LIABILITY IS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED FOR PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH THAT RESULTS FROM READING THE SOURCE CODE.
            • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @10:02PM (17 children)

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

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @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, @12:43AM (3 children)

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

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

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

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @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, @04:08AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @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, @10:37AM

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

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

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

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

                  given that 20%+ of women have been raped

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

                  --
                  It's always my fault...
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @10:41AM (1 child)

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

                      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 04, @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.

                      --
                      It's always my fault...
                  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @10:53AM (1 child)

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

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

                      I feel sick after reading that

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

                by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday May 03, @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, @02:10AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @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, @10:55AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @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, @03:46AM (1 child)

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

                What if the mother did not volunteer to have sex?

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

                --
                ALL LIABILITY IS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED FOR PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH THAT RESULTS FROM READING THE SOURCE CODE.
        • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @07:24PM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @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, @07:27PM

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

            *sigh* Very well...

            lol!

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

            by NewNic (6420) on Thursday May 03, @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, @01:30AM

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

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

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

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @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, @08:30PM (6 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @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, @08:48PM (3 children)

            by pe1rxq (844) on Thursday May 03, @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, @09:20AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @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, @01:58PM (1 child)

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

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @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, @09:05PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @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, @10:59AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @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, @03:25AM (2 children)

          by crafoo (6639) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 04, @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, @04:15PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @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, @06:57PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @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, @12:49PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @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, @10:28PM

        by bzipitidoo (4388) on Thursday May 03, @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!

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday May 03, @07:54PM (18 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Thursday May 03, @07:54PM (#675273) Homepage

      It doesn't baffle me in the slightest.

      The first thing to note is that anti-abortion groups, and the people that support them, also regularly line up against measures that either don't affect abortions or actively prevent abortions, like:
      - Comprehensive and scientifically accurate sex education in schools, where students are taught all about the birds and the bees and all the various birth control methods available to prevent pregnancy.
      - Free and easy access to birth control. Otherwise known as "the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood actually does".
      - As best as we can tell, free and easy access to pornography.
      - Pretty much all sex acts that don't involve penises inside vaginas, including masturbation, anal and oral sex, and homosexual relations.

      Another important barometer is whether the person in question opposes abortion in the case of medical necessity. If it's about preserving and promoting life, then they'll pick "baby dies" over "baby and mom both die". Currently, a little under half of people who say they are pro-life oppose abortion even if it will kill the mom and the baby to not have it. Which means that despite the rhetoric, this isn't about life, it's about something else.

      And if you listen to the folks that oppose even medically necessary abortions for a while, it becomes abundantly clear what that "something else" really is: Opposition to the Sexual Revolution of the 1960's and the accompanying idea that sex purely for pleasure is morally acceptable. In this moral universe, sex for fun is always wrong, and unplanned pregnancy is about exposing and punishing women who have sex for fun. And no, her not consenting to the sex doesn't change anything in these people's minds, because to them the person who was raped is at least as responsible for the rape as the rapist.

      As for Roe v Wade, what they're planning on doing, and have already done a couple of times, is stand up before the Supreme Court and say "Roe v Wade should be overturned and no longer count as currently law. You did that to Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott v Sandford, you can do it to Roe v Wade." Because for these folks it isn't really about the law, it's about their personal religious morality, which to them is more important than the law.

      One last point: Conservatives are not libertarians, as a general rule. They tend to support freedom for business, but have no problems with restrictions on individuals.

      --
      A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of bad gravy.
      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @09:35PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @09:35PM (#675328)

        Comprehensive and scientifically accurate sex education in schools

        You mean like how they teach kids gender is a choice now a days? Fuck off. Yeah, the sex ed was just a start. A step towards total degeneracy we have today.

        In this moral universe, sex for fun is always wrong

        Tell a 30-something-dick-carousel-rider who hit the wall if it was fun, now that she decided to settle down and no respectable man will touch her. Oh what's that? There are no good men left? For shame skank, for shame.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @01:34AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @01:34AM (#675421)

          Notice how they won't dare touch when the absolute latest the abortion should be legal. Instead, lets focus on the fraction of a percent edge case.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @02:13AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @02:13AM (#675436)

            The woman should be able to terminate the pregnancy at any point. There you go.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @11:05AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @11:05AM (#675586)
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @07:01PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @07:01PM (#675812)

          You mean like how they teach kids gender is a choice now a days? Fuck off. Yeah, the sex ed was just a start. A step towards total degeneracy we have today.

          Yeah! MAGAots! Next thing, they will being trying for force kids to learn that global warming is anthropmorphic, or that the earth is not flat! Once they get started with that Leftist "knowledge" and "science" shit, there is no stopping them!

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @09:46PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @09:46PM (#675340)

        Planned Parenthood talks about all sorts of services they offer, but women have gone in with hidden cameras and attempted to get those services. Typically they get referred to other providers. This is especially true if you are actually planning parenthood.

        What little they bother to do is helping to pay the rent, and much of that funding is from the government in various ways. So yes, people are being taxed to pay for abortion, because money is fungible. Every dollar is as good as every other dollar for paying the electric bill.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @07:07PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @07:07PM (#675815)

          women have gone in with hidden cameras

          James O'Keefe is NOT a woman! You have been deceived by Project Veritas! How ironic, in fact so ironic as to be iridiumic!! (He does dress up nice, as a woman, for a right-wing nut-job! Alt-right, alt-gender, I always say!)

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday May 03, @10:23PM (3 children)

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday May 03, @10:23PM (#675361)

        I should be able to mod this to +6 as it is one of the clearest explanations I have read of the US conservative christian mindset.

        Thanks.

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Friday May 04, @02:42AM (2 children)

          by bzipitidoo (4388) on Friday May 04, @02:42AM (#675448) Journal

          Thing is, it's not particularly Christian. In many respects it's the diametric opposite. There's no loving thy neighbor, no. Neighbors are enemies. It's extreme social conservatism, patriarchy, and it looks remarkably similar across cultures and religions. The defining characteristics are men of limited intelligence and imagination in control and women powerless. And men using this control to father lots and lots of children, the better to bury enemy cultures by sheer weight of numbers. "Go forth and multiply" is not a conscious plan, it's more of an instinct. To them, the world is a divinely created stage upon which this contest with other peoples takes place, and children, even their own, are cannon fodder for the religious war machine. They don't think about any of that much, they like to just rely on gut instincts. Thinking is hard work. The unstated and possibly even subconscoius goal is to make more babies than the enemies, and they're always trying to twist the laws that direction. That's how they can be opposed to abortion, but in favor of guns.

          Afghanistan is a good example of this sort of society. Some try to prevent girls from getting an education, a very few going as far as to try to murder them just for going to school. On average, women have 8 children each, and half of them die of malnutrition, disease, fatal accidents through extreme recklessness and carelessness, or of plain murder before reaching adulthood. The deaths of the children who don't make it are shrugged off as "that's life" and as "must have displeased Allah".

          The US has had this on much smaller scales. Every few years there's another crazy cult with the same dreary setup of an absolute dictator of a leader and a bunch of brainwashed, feeble minded, slavish followers. Peoples Temple. Branch Davidians, and Yearning for Zion to name just a few. The biggest may be the Mormons. Yearning for Zion was one of the more nakedly obvious. The leader and his inner circle ran their organization as basically a personal harem for themselves. Teenage boys were kicked out, and teenage girls were forced to marry one of the elders who would then impregnate them as quickly as possible.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @12:51PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @12:51PM (#675622)

            And they call me fucking crazy. Yes, trying to keep people from murdering their children is like keeping women from learning their ABC's. Give me a fucking break clown-brain.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05, @05:29PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05, @05:29PM (#676095)

            Depending on the Christian beliefs it might be more logical to save the baby and let the Christian mother die.

            For example if you believe that not all babies go to heaven if they die but all Christians go to heaven if they die. Then logically the baby takes priority over a Christian mother.

            BUT if all babies go to heaven if they die then if we want more people in heaven we should be aborting more babies before they become adults on Earth. Maybe even producing more babies for that purpose - send thousands or even millions to heaven then ask for forgiveness and it's a win-win for everyone right?

            So which is it? ;)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @11:26PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @11:26PM (#675391)

        You say "it's about their personal religious morality", but that misses the point. It's about God's universal morality. These people don't have a choice, and neither do you: the morals apply to everybody. It doesn't matter if you object to God's will or even if you deny God's existence. The morals are universal.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday May 03, @11:40PM (1 child)

          by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 03, @11:40PM (#675395) Homepage Journal

          I hope you and your imaginary sky daddy will be very happy together.

          And no, you've just mistaken your trained-in prejudices for the laws of nature.

          Educate yourself or remain forever ignorant.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @01:32AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @01:32AM (#675417)

            Oh, bless your heart.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday May 04, @02:49AM (1 child)

          by Thexalon (636) on Friday May 04, @02:49AM (#675450) Homepage

          It's about God's universal morality.

          No it isn't.

          Even if you accept the Bible as God's word, there's a lot of stuff that modern-day Christians make a big deal about which have dubious-at-best Biblical basis (e.g. prosperity gospel). Which means that some individual human's interpretation is involved, and they're describing as "God's universal morality" stuff that God didn't actually put in the instruction manual.

          Furthermore, the people who like to talk about God's universal morality do an awful lot of picking and choosing about which rules they're going to follow or care about. For instance, I live not too far from where the "King of Kings" statue used to be, which could certainly be seen as one of those graven images specifically banned in the 10 Commandments. Said statue was destroyed by a bolt of lightning - can you get more "hand-of-God" than that? Without wasting a moment, the church started raising money for, and built, a second giant statue. I kind of wanted to sneak in a radio mike tuned to the same frequency as the preacher, wait for the pastor to start talking about the need for a new giant statue and say in a loud booming voice over the PA system "How did you not get the message the first time?!? I thought I was pretty clear!"

          --
          A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of bad gravy.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @09:27AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @09:27AM (#675551)

            I kind of wanted to sneak in a radio mike tuned to the same frequency as the preacher, wait for the pastor to start talking about the need for a new giant statue and say in a loud booming voice over the PA system "How did you not get the message the first time?!? I thought I was pretty clear!"

            Now, THAT, just might bring me back into the Church! ( Well, for at least one visit! ).

      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Friday May 04, @02:55PM (1 child)

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 04, @02:55PM (#675681)

        I'm a New Right guy not an Old Right guy so I don't agree with many aspects of Old Right thinking. However I know boomer RINOs purty well, so I can intelligently comment on your claims about my Old Right cousins:

        Basically we as a culture already have everything demanded on your list, to a rational minimum if not far to excess, so pushing hard for even more seems pointless to the Old Right and New Right. Left wing ranting about birth control being unavailable sounds as comedic as voting ID laws causing massive disenfranchisement of non-whites, highly ridiculous and unlikely straw dogging and race baiting rabble rousing. Its the same argument about a unrelated topic. Until every day we have police force a pack of condoms into every hand of every child at gunpoint with summary execution of those who won't accept, we'll have endless left wing claims that its simply scientifically proven impossible to obtain birth control and its so much work and nobody should be expected to put any effort into anything and we just need ever more programs and liberal arts grads to staff them, and its such a crisis we have to worry about, blah blah blah. Obtaining a condom is a rounding error for men compared to the willpower, money, and time required to get laid, amid a lot of straw dogs about imaginary victims and much like gun control no amount of regulation and expense is too much to save even one life blah blah. Its all kinda tired and old and not a modern outlook on life. Its not really a specific topic to argue against; its a legacy 60s hippie style of argument that is fought against as a class of argument, such that the facts of birth control don't matter to the debate, the problem is the philosophy behind the argument itself is unappealing and tired legacy arguments. If you take away the style of argument thats being opposed, there really isn't much of a point left. What is being fought against is kinda the left wing equivalent of the really old right doctrine of "total war". Much like its not possible even in theory to ever "win" the war on drugs, its not possible even in theory to "win" the war against sexual morality. I'm further not entirely clear why we "need" to win a war against sexual morality, how shitty of a world would it be to live in if we won that war? Other than pissing off the Old Right Christians the war against sexual morality doesn't seem like a useful goal to aspire to. A crazy alternative history world where leftists won everything they want, sounds like a great place to be a refugee from, or to write a dystopian novel about, but nobody would want to live there; so whats the point of the endless push?

        As for why the Old Right believes certain non-rational things, its no different than Old Left Jewish Dietary Purity Laws or any other religious issue. They didn't get those cultural lifestyle outlooks by calm rational academic philosophical debate as grown adults consciously deciding the right way to live, and you're not going to talk them out of their belief in a rational manner. Find me a leftist who was keeping Kosher twitter posting or Kosher diet or Kosher community participation guidelines who was talked out of it in a calm rational academic philosophical manner, LOL good luck. If you're anti-Christian, in opposition to the beliefs and lifestyles of Christians, then actively and consciously be anti-Christian, don't be deeply closeted talking endlessly about how the Bible's calculated value for pi is wrong past the first digit of rounding in the writing about the dimensions of some round biblical thingie so THAT is we have to keep the ten commandments out of school because it would be awful to bring up a generation thinking pi is about three instead of the far more accurate fractional numerical representations of that irrational number. None of that angels dancing on head of pin stuff is convincing to anyone on either side. Christians will support Christian thought, people who don't care are mostly chill about living under Christian dominated areas, and anti-Christians are closeted and won't admit it instead producing vast bowls of word salad that convince nobody on either side. A long academic screed about abortion is like a long academic screed about why Jesus did (or did not) die for your sins or bacon is or is not kosher, nobody who agrees or disagrees has ever changed their mind because the sophistry was so well written or repeated enough times. Essentially most of the arguments boil down to "I'm not Christian so I'll make fun of weird corners of Christian thought", naturally the Old Right Christians are not going to respond favorably. Not being honest is a weak way to argue. Its like people who don't like black men shooting people fighting for control of the guns, as if the guns are the problem, because they don't think black-control will market as well as gun-control, but too many people see thru it and find the argument very unconvincing.

        One last point: Conservatives are not libertarians, as a general rule. They tend to support freedom for business, but have no problems with restrictions on individuals.

        Old Right was wedded at the hip to evangelicals and neocons. New Right are mostly refugees from the capital L Libertarian party turning hard left, and as such are generally fairly socially libertarian. Generally speaking Old Right is dying out with the boomers and New Right is ascendent with Gen-X and younger so that statement will likely look really bizarre in a decade or two, when President Richard Spencer legalizes weed or replaces the Federal Reserve with bitcoin or whatever. Also Conservative in the sense of keeping society on the same path its been on since long before they were born, does not describe New Right who see 60s Old Left as hyper conservative and "the man" and demanding hyper conformist behavior and speech, whereas New Right is the rebels who want to change everything. Consider Hillary and her picture perfect 1975 campaign failing in 2016 because 2016 isn't 1975 anymore so a paleo-conservative 60s hippie simply had no chance in 2016, of course Hillary lost, it hadn't been 1975 in about 41 years at that time. Which side is getting trash talked by the conservative legacy cultural leaders in media and politics.. As a hint "the establishment" at CNN or NYT or the Post or Twitter or any of the online censors are not trash talking the old or new left... All the cool rebelious kids (and Kayne) are on the new right. In that way Hillary and her weird alliance with globalist business makes sense, leftism IS the new conservatism, its the new right who are the radicals. Making the statement look even weirder as USA politics continues its great realignment.

        • (Score: 2) by VLM on Friday May 04, @03:05PM

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 04, @03:05PM (#675690)

          style of argument that is fought against as a class of argument

          Posted to edit that there is a specific name for that style of argument "tactical nihilism" where we MUST destroy society in order to save society.

          There are entire reams of leftist thought on numerous topics that get written off by the Old Right and New Right as yeah yeah whatever nice argument "proving" civilization was a terrible idea and totally proving its impossible, therefore we must get rid of it and stamp out any semblance of civilization, and the response being something like I'd rather live in civilization so nice argument but oh well.

          Its like taking a print out of that scientific paper that proved given simplified obsolete fluid dynamics equations, honeybees are unable to fly, then walking up to an active honeybee hive full of happy and busily working bees, and screaming that paper over at over at the bees as loud as possible from every form of media imaginable then being surprised the bees don't magically fall out of the sky, or the bees don't feel really bad about the proven facts of the argument, or really have much of any reaction other than "they crazy" and "I'm not electing that character as our next queen, no way" "sorry busy running civilization over here plz be quiet and get out of the way with your parodies".

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Friday May 04, @02:50AM (4 children)

      by jmorris (4844) <{jmorris} {at} {beau.org}> on Friday May 04, @02:50AM (#675451)

      Before you reply, go read the actual Roe v. Wade decision. This remains among the best SCOTUS rulings, it's very clear....

      Before you do that, try actually reading the Constitution those Justices swore to uphold and defend. You will find not a single words in it about abortion, childbirth, medicine, when life begins, etc. Since none of those things are there and the 9th and 10th Amendments are most certainly still there they had zero lawful authority to have any opinion at all on the subject, it being one of the wide areas of authority reserved to the States. This means some States may enact laws on the subject you don't like, others may enact laws I don't like. And that is OK.

      There is also no "Right to Privacy" emanating from some hitherto unseen penumbra of the 14th Amendment, so that too is currently an area of the law reserved to the States to deal with as they see fit until such time as the Constitution is lawfully amended by one of the two methods contained within itself.

      How does the mother's right to host or not host this life-changing ball of cells not lie solely in her court...

      She does. If you want to allow abortion in the first month or so after a rape I think you could easily build a 2/3 majority to amend the Constitution if some States went so far as forbid it in such a case and also forbid the morning after pill. What do you think sex is? Do you get Discovery Channel where you live? Ever heard that song by the Bloodhound Gang? When you engage in a procreative act, procreation is not an expected result. Women should not be infantalized and allowed to avoid responsibility for their actions.

      As for the usual canard trotted out at this point in most of these debates (and I see in full swing elsewhere in this thread) that since only women get pregnant only women should have a voice in the debate, fuck that idiocy. Gestation only takes nine months but raising a child to maturity takes 18-21 years and men are legally co-equally liable for all of that period. So explain again why men's "choice" ends at orgasm? At the same time women can choose to either have "her" baby and extract resources from the father for decades, while at the same time explaining how he has zero say in whether she keeps "her" baby. It is only "their" baby for the few minutes in the courthouse every year or so while child support is being adjusted. So no, unless men can lalso egally "abort" their responsibilities (meaning the mother could either actually abort or carry on knowing she would be solely responsible for support) they have an equal say in abortion in both the individual case and the subject as public policy because they ARE equally involved.

      It baffles me that conservatives line up against abortion

      That doesn't appear to be hard, baffling you. Lemme give some clues. Conservatives != Libertarians. Conservatives believe in moral order beyond "let the market sort it out" which is what distinguishes them from Libertarians. Second, you are assuming your view of abortion is universally held to be true, that a baby in the womb is only a clump of tissue. If one believes it is a developing child, murder is wrong and it is perfectly consistent with limited government to ask it to enforce the prohibitions on murder. That is in fact the crux of the entire debate.

      Both sides use language to try to short circuit that debate by attempting to persuade the undecided public to adopt their preferred terminology. As soon as one accepts the "Pro Choice" language the conclusion becomes obvious. To be subject to a "choice" it can't be a baby's life under debate, right? Nobody would seriously have the balls (ok, there are a few... Singer for one) to stand up and say women should have the right to kill their children. Just wouldn't happen, political suicide. Of course if one is paying attention there is another assumption packed in the term the supporters hope you don't notice. Women can only have a "right to choose" if we are all in agreement that it isn't an important choice.

      Equally the "Pro Life" term is loaded with a conclusion, to accept it also ends the debate. Nobody is going to agree with that terminology, that "Life" is what is being debated, and say "Screw it, so it is alive. Kill it anyway!" Once you accept the language, the conclusion comes packed quietly along with it.

      So avoid both if you want to debate it honestly you have to just say it is the Abortion debate. Or a debate about when life begins for purposes of making law. Religions differ on the point and we can't just pick one and impose it so there has to be a line picked that we can politically agree on enough to move on to another issue.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @11:34AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @11:34AM (#675594)

        If you want to allow abortion in the first month or so after a rape

        Remind me, how long does it take for a woman to tell she is pregnant?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @07:18PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @07:18PM (#675820)

          If you want to allow abortion in the first month or so after a rape

          Remind me, how long does it take for a woman to tell she is pregnant?

          jmorris does not know any women. His entire post is based on hearsay. And you know what they say about her-say, constitutionally?

          • (Score: 2) by Tara Li on Wednesday May 09, @07:45PM

            by Tara Li (6248) on Wednesday May 09, @07:45PM (#677582)

            10 days to 3 weeks, according to the makers of pregnancy tests.

        • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday May 05, @03:57AM

          by jmorris (4844) <{jmorris} {at} {beau.org}> on Saturday May 05, @03:57AM (#675971)

          One presumes that if a woman is raped she knows sex happened and if she has watched TV or attended a government school she knows how babies get made so is fully aware of the possibility of pregnancy. Lets try to give women a little credit for having a brain, K? So step one is the morning after pill, that should be automatically offered at the same time the rape kit is being processed, just put the pill in the kits and be done. Step two is carefully watching for pregnancy, even those $1 tests can spot it pretty early now and providing a rape victim actual medical assistance to quickly identify and fix the problem would be something I'd support. So lets just take those canards off the table, rape and life of the mother are perfectly acceptable exceptions for most people.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @10:35AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @10:35AM (#675572)

      Great. The fetus can be transferred to someone else if the courts really want it to live.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by meustrus on Thursday May 03, @06:52PM (2 children)

    "Some Republican lawmakers" may think it's a good thing for the anti-abortion movement if a law like this goes to court. They are idiots. The Iowa Catholic Conference, which is very anti-abortion, does not support this bill [iowacatholicconference.org] specifically because of what is likely to happen in court:

    ...we should take into account that this bill is likely to be found unconstitutional. We should consider the unintended long-term consequences that could result from a court finding a robust right to an abortion in Iowa’s Constitution, which could include the elimination of some of the limitations on abortion we already have in Iowa.

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @07:08PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @07:08PM (#675237)

      Because it is, and painfully obviously so.

      Ironically the Iowa legislature likely just ensured the opposite of what they thought they were doing. And the people of Iowa will pay for the legal bills along the way.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @04:25AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @04:25AM (#675496)

        Tom Miller and the AG office have not revealed whether they will defend this Law (which technically isn't law yet, as it isn't signed by our acting Governor). It wouldn't be the first time they have passed on defending a law because of the requirement to defend the Federal and Iowa Constitutions are considered paramount.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by SpockLogic on Thursday May 03, @06:52PM (7 children)

    by SpockLogic (2762) on Thursday May 03, @06:52PM (#675227)

    The GOP's war on women's right to choose on full display.

    They want to keep them barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @09:54PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @09:54PM (#675347)

      My wife chose to be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. We have 11 kids. I hope you can be tolerant of her choice. Realistically, I know you are disgusted by her choice. You don't respect her at all.

      Oh, not only that: she is Catholic, she homeschools, and she voted for Trump in a swing state. No oral or anal, obviously, because that isn't connected to the womb.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @11:49AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @11:49AM (#675603)

        We didn't need to know your wife doesn't do oral or anal
        TMI!

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday May 03, @10:15PM (1 child)

      by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 03, @10:15PM (#675355) Journal

      Hasn't that ship totally, completely, sailed? Two income families are the norm now. American households depend on two incomes. With DC cutting the throats of entire industries at a stroke with trade deals that outsource everything, a single-income family just doesn't have any power to negotiate a wage that can make up the difference anymore.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @09:01AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @09:01AM (#675548)

        I think we got just what Helen Reddy sung about when I was a kid.

        My Dad recognized it and I distinctly remember him telling me what would happen if what she sang about took hold.

        It did, and Dad correctly foretold the future. Where even two people working combined would barely afford a place to sleep.

        While bankers live in luxury off the usury of loaning money they never had.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @01:37AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @01:37AM (#675422)

      Do tell when the absolute latest an abortion should be allowed. I'm waiting here with baited breath. Oh, you don't want to talk about that? Why not?

      • (Score: 2, Funny) by aristarchus on Friday May 04, @07:22PM (1 child)

        by aristarchus (2645) on Friday May 04, @07:22PM (#675821) Journal

        I'm waiting here with baited breath.

        WRONG! The correct phrase is "with bated breath", "bated", as in "abate" or "rebate", or "probate", literally "held back". Do your part to improve Soylentil literacy!

        --
        #Free{nick}_NOW!!!
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday May 05, @03:48AM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday May 05, @03:48AM (#675968) Journal

          Another pro-tip for the professional Soylentil! +1 Pedant is the proper mod for helpful corrections such as above. Never, in fact NEVER EVER mod a grammarian -1 Troll. Hell hath no fury like a grammarian troll-modded, and it makes the actual trolls quite upset, whether from jealously or umbrage at being so compared we do not know. In any case, this mod is a dangerous move. You have been warned. Best to avoid grammatical errors in the near future. Just saying . . .

          --
          #Free{nick}_NOW!!!
  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 03, @06:54PM (1 child)

    by bob_super (1357) on Thursday May 03, @06:54PM (#675228)

    How many millions are being spent, because the US constitutions lack a way to review and toss out laws that are blatantly either unconstitutional or inconsistent with current SCOTUS rulings?

    Since the official goal of those morons is to have a conservative SCOTUS revisit Roe v Wade, they need better ways than to pass laws that directly contradict the precedent. The court has been tossing quite a few of those recently, because precedence is a conservative value, in the absence of new facts to motivate a change of opinion (and 3 women on the court makes a pretty good block against that particular change).

    • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday May 04, @03:53AM

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 04, @03:53AM (#675473) Homepage Journal

      Our SC judges, they're judges for life. But -- people don't know this -- they can quit any time.

      Kennedy, Breyer & Ginsburg are VERY OLD, they're the oldest ones on our SC. Kennedy swings both ways, the others are 100% liberal. So maybe they want a liberal President to pick their replacements. Obama was no liberal, they waited that one out -- very smart move. They can quit now and I'll pick someone. Or they can wait until 2025 and maybe it'll be President Pence picking. And let me tell you, he's no liberal.

      I made a great choice with Neil, he's very young. He's the youngest on the SC. And I'd love to put some more young people, but there's nothing I can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is.

      --
      #StopTheBias [twitter.com]
  • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday May 03, @07:00PM (39 children)

    by Freeman (732) on Thursday May 03, @07:00PM (#675229) Journal

    Abortion is one of those topics where both sides tend to have a fairly strong opinion. Without further ado let me get the ball rolling.

    "State Fetal Homicide Laws
    Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*)."
    http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx [ncsl.org]

    "The current judicial interpretation of the U.S. Constitution regarding abortion in the United States, following the Supreme Court of the United States 1973 landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, and subsequent companion decisions, is that abortion is legal but may be restricted by the states to varying degrees. States have passed laws to restrict late term abortions, require parental notification for minors, and mandate the disclosure of abortion risk information to patients prior to the procedure.[5]"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state [wikipedia.org]

    Sounds like you're having your cake and eating it too. Assuming you allow abortions, but also have laws regarding Fetal Homicide as a homicide.

    I'm definitely on the side of anti-abortion to a certain point. The exceptions are Mother's prerogative, if it would endanger her life. I.E. carrying the baby would have abnormal risk for them due to some medical reason. Also, if abortion would be a mercy to the child. I.E. some medical condition where the child won't live very long and / or they would be in pain their entire existence.

    --
    "I said in my haste, All men are liars." Psalm 116:11
    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday May 03, @07:07PM (28 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 03, @07:07PM (#675235) Journal

      You may be very interested in what the Bible has to say about abortion, and what, historically, the churches have. The word "quickening" is a good starting point...

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Freeman on Thursday May 03, @07:40PM (25 children)

        by Freeman (732) on Thursday May 03, @07:40PM (#675266) Journal

        Life begins at conception. The murder of an unborn child is just that.

        "Science tells us that human life begins at the time of conception. From the moment fertilization takes place, the child's genetic makeup is already complete. Its gender has already been determined, along with its height and hair, eye and skin color. The only thing the embryo needs to become a fully-functioning being is the time to grow and develop."
        https://www.gotquestions.org/life-begin-conception.html [gotquestions.org]

        "Life Begins at Fertilization
        The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:"
        https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html [princeton.edu]

        Psalm 139:13-16:
        "13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
        14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
        15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
        16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."

        1 Samuel 1:19-20:
        "19 And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the Lord, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah: and Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the Lord remembered her.
        20 Wherefore it came to pass, when the time was come about after Hannah had conceived, that she bare a son, and called his name Samuel, saying, Because I have asked him of the Lord."

        --
        "I said in my haste, All men are liars." Psalm 116:11
        • (Score: 5, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday May 03, @07:46PM (20 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 03, @07:46PM (#675268) Journal

          You really are a selective reader, aren't you? There is another passage stating that if a pregnant woman is injured, and loses the baby, but otherwise "no harm follows," there is a fine to be paid. A fine. NOT the death penalty. Psalm 139 speaks to God's supposed omniscience, and therefore it could just as much be relevant to *before* the embryo (or its mother, for that matter...) was conceived. No weight in this context, in other words. Ditto First Samuel, since that one's just saying Yahweh made Hannah pregnant, which is *also* presumably part of the divine plan what was laid out an eternity ago.

          I notice you don't seem to know what "the quickening" is either, nor its historical significance to the religious position on the abortion debate.

          Freeman, you are not arguing in good faith. This damages the credibility of your witness significantly.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 1, Troll) by Freeman on Thursday May 03, @08:06PM (10 children)

            by Freeman (732) on Thursday May 03, @08:06PM (#675277) Journal

            The notion of "the quickening" was first introduced by Aristotle. The fact that life starts when the sperm meets the egg isn't disputed in the Bible or in Science. Thus, abortion at any stage is against the Bible. It's also quite literally the murder of an unborn child. The passage you're noting isn't directly addressing abortion. It's addressing what consequences should befall someone who inadvertently or purposefully injures a pregnant woman which then leads to the loss of the baby. It doesn't address the purposeful action of murdering the unborn child.

            --
            "I said in my haste, All men are liars." Psalm 116:11
            • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday May 03, @08:23PM (9 children)

              by Thexalon (636) on Thursday May 03, @08:23PM (#675290) Homepage

              The fact that life starts when the sperm meets the egg isn't disputed in the Bible

              There ain't no such thing as the human egg in the Bible. As in, there's no evidence that anybody at the time the Bible was written had any idea such a thing existed: The first theorizing that a mammal egg was something that ought to exist was apparently in the 1500's CE, and nobody found one until 1827 CE, and they didn't find a human egg for another century or so. Without a concept of a human egg, there can be no concept of "the sperm meets the egg", and without such a concept there can be no disputing that concept.

              The understanding of mammal and human conception in the Bible up until that point, matching the scientific understanding at the time, was that a man deposits his "seed" into a woman in much the same way that a farmer deposits his plant seeds into the ground, and that's why she gets pregnant. Which means they had managed to connect sexual intercourse with the first signs of pregnancy about 6 weeks later, but didn't really understand why a baby could end up looking like their mother.

              --
              A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of bad gravy.
              • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday May 03, @09:09PM (8 children)

                by Freeman (732) on Thursday May 03, @09:09PM (#675311) Journal

                Yet, they had a concept of conception. The idea that life started well before the baby took it's first breath. It took Science a long time to pinpoint at what exact point Life starts.

                --
                "I said in my haste, All men are liars." Psalm 116:11
                • (Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday May 03, @09:37PM (5 children)

                  by Thexalon (636) on Thursday May 03, @09:37PM (#675331) Homepage

                  It took Science a long time to pinpoint at what exact point Life starts.

                  You're the one that decided to cite the Bible to justify your viewpoint.

                  I should also point out that abortion was a known practice during the time the Bible was written, and yet the Bible is silent on the subject. The first Christian opposition to abortion comes about a century after Paul, and decades after the Book of Revelations was written, and even then it's not really until the 1800's that opposition to abortion prior to "quickening" (i.e. first noticeable movements of the fetus in utero) became a common religious doctrine. Before the discovery of the human egg, the idea was that before "quickening", the fetus hadn't gotten a soul yet, and thus killing it would be either not a crime at all or a relatively minor property offense.

                  In short: A lot of people who oppose abortion on religious grounds do so not because of what the Bible said, but because of what their religious leaders say the Bible said. Which, in my experience, are frequently at odds with each other.

                  --
                  A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of bad gravy.
                  • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday May 03, @09:51PM (4 children)

                    by Freeman (732) on Thursday May 03, @09:51PM (#675343) Journal

                    No, I was responding to Azuma Hazuki's comment on what the Bible says or doesn't say about abortion.

                    I have no disagreements regarding your thoughts on what and how (at least some) people have expressed their opinions on abortion in the past.

                    --
                    "I said in my haste, All men are liars." Psalm 116:11
                    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday May 04, @04:09AM (3 children)

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 04, @04:09AM (#675481) Journal

                      Jeez, you're a slippery little fuck. You're wrong, okay? You're wrong, science says you're wrong, your own Bible says you're wrong, and no matter how much you repeat otherwise and how much you hide behind a mask of feigned civility and calmness, you are not one whit less wrong for it. You're getting your ass kicked up and down the room here and you don't even have the humility to admit it. Wasn't there something about Pride being one of the worst sins...?

                      --
                      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                      • (Score: 1, Troll) by Freeman on Friday May 04, @02:52PM (2 children)

                        by Freeman (732) on Friday May 04, @02:52PM (#675678) Journal

                        Science doesn't say anything about the ethical, moral, or legal policies involving abortion. Science on the other hand does prove that Life begins at conception. The Bible says in multiple places that X person conceived and bore a child. The Bible points to the fact that He cares about us, no matter what stage of development we are in. He cares for all creation. Why would He not care that we are killing innocent unborn children? There's definitely a number of places that the Bible warns against being proud. Proverbs has quite a few examples.

                        Matthew 6:26 "26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?"

                        You can say, I don't care what the Bible says. That's not up to me to decide as we each make our own choices. It's up to me to decide whether I can in good conscientious vote for or against a law that involves abortion. Which is the killing of an innocent unborn child. Abortion is one of the instances where "think of the children" shouldn't be a mocking meme.

                        --
                        "I said in my haste, All men are liars." Psalm 116:11
                        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday May 04, @07:07PM

                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 04, @07:07PM (#675816) Journal

                          Your God is ALL ABOUT killing the unborn. Numbers 31 for example. And the threads early on in Hosea, where he seems to delight in telling how he'll have his soldiers rip pregnant woman apart. Then there's "blessed be he who taketh your babes and dasheth them upon the rocks" or so, though those are already-born children.

                          You're full of shit and you don't know your own Bible or religion even half as well as you think you do. And what you vomit at me is irrelevant to your case. Again: you aren't arguing in good faith, and every time you embarrass yourself like this, your witness loses more and more credibility. And Augustine (yes Augustine again) way back in the 400s made the point that Christians who look like idiots and don't know their science give the religion a bad name. I recall you saying you were "not sure if [you'd] consider Catholics Bible-believing Christians" the last time I mentioned him; you seem unaware that there was over a millennium between Augustine and Martin Luther...

                          --
                          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                        • (Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Saturday May 05, @03:24AM

                          by SomeGuy (5632) on Saturday May 05, @03:24AM (#675963)

                          Facepalm at all the mental retardation this story has stirred up. Seriously, take your meds.

                          Everyone is free to their opinion on the matter of abortion. There simply is no exact "right" or "wrong" answer here. Some legal lines have to be drawn so people involved know if they are violating laws or not. The legal decisions are made mostly through guesswork plus politics, and the results will never make everyone happy. Since you don't understand the science or realities behind it, you err on the absolute side of caution and that is fine. It is a mind-bogglingly complicated matter.

                          But quoting bullshit from your magic book or babbling about a magic sky being just makes you sound fucking retarded. I also dare say that it is probably quite insulting to anyone who has had to deal with the topic.

                          Science could tell us something about ethical, moral, or legal policies. But you would not like the answers. :P There are many questions science has yet to answer. There are many questions yet to be asked. Having your head firmly implanted up your ass with the belief all answers must come though an imaginary magic sky fairy or from a book of gibberish will never result in any meaningful answers.

                          Calculating solution... Optimal solution found: "Remember to have your humans spayed or neutered".

                • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @09:43AM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @09:43AM (#675558)

                  The idea that life started well before the baby took it's first breath.

                  No. For Jews of the period, the soul is one's breath. The Christian misconception on the subject is actually a Greek & Latin translation issue combined with immaculate birth dogma being heavily affected by pagan stories about how Zeus would change forms and mate with animals to create Gods / monsters. Hebrew didn't even have a separate word for "soul". It literally used/uses "one's breath" (נשמה). It's further exemplified in how the bible idiomatically refers to living people as כל־נשמה in different places. A separate (and likely later though it's debated) Jewish folklore states that an angle descends upon a child's birth and breaths life into their lungs by kissing them similarly to how Adam was made.

                  And this is actually the most compatible interpretation with modern Christian values regarding birth. The common Jewish belief, then and now, is:

                  “We do not mourn for fetuses (nefalim), and anything which does not live for 30 days, we do not mourn for it.” — Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Aveilut 1:6

                  “The infant, for 30 days, even including the full 30th day (if it dies), we do not mourn for it.” – Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De’ah 374:8

                  Regardless, mainstream Christianity is so hopelessly removed from the Hebrew sources and biblical studies (let alone science) that it makes the backwater mainstream Rabbinical Judaism look enlightened. Moreover, people forget the information age actually reached biblical scholars and everything they were/are taught by their religious leaders is centuries behind what research now knows and accepts about the scriptures. The understanding of the language in terms of grammar and idioms alone makes 99.99% of Catholicism, Protestantism and no small amount of Rabbinical Judaism simply wrong and obsolete.

                  • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday May 08, @04:26PM

                    by Freeman (732) on Tuesday May 08, @04:26PM (#677080) Journal

                    It wouldn't be the first time that the Jews made a mistake. Assuming the babe in the womb isn't a real person. Why would Elisabeth's baby (John the Baptist) have been noted as having leapt for joy? Please note "Messianic Judaism" is the only sect of the religion that actually believes Jesus was the Messiah.

                    Luke 1:41-44
                    "41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
                    42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
                    43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
                    44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."

                    --
                    "I said in my haste, All men are liars." Psalm 116:11
          • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @08:12PM (8 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @08:12PM (#675284)

            They never argue in good faith.

            They know. And all facts must fit what they know. Or be discarded.

            And of course since they are doing God’s work they don’t mind being unethical or even crossing legal bounds. They are righteous after all.

            Ignorance is bliss.

            • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday May 03, @09:17PM (7 children)

              by Freeman (732) on Thursday May 03, @09:17PM (#675315) Journal

              No, all facts are facts. The difference is that you don't believe there is a God or that the Bible is anything more than myths. What we're talking about isn't about whether or not Life begins when the baby is conceived. What we're talking about is the ethical, moral, and legal right to kill an unborn child. Which I define as murder as it's the killing of an innocent unborn child. Which apparently you define as ok, because it can't survive without the Mom. Not, because it's not the killing of an innocent unborn child. An innocent unborn child, kid, teenager, and adult can get along just fine without a Father. So, why make him pay child support? Because reasons? It's certainly much more onerous to spend 18+ years supporting a child he didn't want, if indeed that's what he decided.

              --
              "I said in my haste, All men are liars." Psalm 116:11
              • (Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @09:36PM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @09:36PM (#675330)

                Even if we grant you the moral high ground, which I do NOT, the reality is that making abortions illegal has massive negative outcomes. You get women going to backalley docs with significantly higher risks, or doing some sort of self-harm to cause a miscarriage. Don't forget the unwanted children, growing up hated by mom (rape cases) creates some pretty serious psychopaths and negative life outcomes. Growing up in an orphanage is also pretty terrible. There was also a study that showed that 15-20 years after abortion was legalized crime rates started to drop.

                So, unless you are willing to fund all these unwanted children then STFU. Typical bullshit morality. If you're so concerned with murder then why do religious conservatives overwhelming support our wars in the middle east? Drone killings, collateral damage, etc.?

                Where does the personal responsibility lie if a woman does her best to not get pregnant with birth control but it happens anyway? What about non-christian babies who would end up in hell anyway? Have you ever given your beliefs any real critical thought?

                Oh, here is a trade off. I'll agree to ban abortions if you can build an organization that takes in EVERY unwanted baby and raises them well, along with no more persecuting gay people, and your churches are no longer tax-exempt. We'll have to confiscate the guns from any christian person since they can be used to muuuuurrderrrr. There will be a few other provisions, but those are the immediate ones I can think of.

                How many unwanted babies have you adopted again?

                • (Score: 1, Troll) by Freeman on Thursday May 03, @10:24PM (1 child)

                  by Freeman (732) on Thursday May 03, @10:24PM (#675362) Journal

                  Killing someone who intends to harm you or your loved ones is self defense. Not murder, as the moral definition of murder would be the killing of an innocent.

                  War is all kinds of messed up. The USA has been involved in quite a few. Some wars that aren't / weren't "wars", too. At what point do we say enough is enough, at what point do we turn the other cheek, at what point do we find it reasonable to murder thousands of civilians, because we're fed up? We're the only country to have used atomic weapons in war. At what point does a civilian population become liable for their leaders' actions? At what point is an "innocent civilian" no longer an innocent? Sure, lets not be involved in anymore wars and become pacifists. That will fix everything. It's not like we've been attacked without provocation, before. Actually, guess what, there have been at least two distinct instances of that happening. Pearl Harbor and the Twin Towers were the catalysts for the following wars the United States got involved in. I dare say, that the civilian casualties have likely gone down with the advent of modern warfare. We'll assume you mean truly modern, like desert storm+.

                  Guess what, life is full of responsibilities, some like Child Support for men who get women pregnant. I don't think it's too much to ask for a woman who accidentally gets pregnant to take responsibility for their actions.

                  There are already organizations that adopt out children. Healthy babies aren't hard to find homes for. I haven't adopted any children, but I'm also not in a financial place to do so. I do have a brother that has adopted a child, though.

                  How / why churches are tax-exempt isn't something I've really read up on. Though, Jesus himself said "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.", so I'm not opposed to Churches abiding by the law. (There are certain exceptions, but they are generally acceptable to most. Please see the "Underground Railroad" as an example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_Railroad [wikipedia.org])

                  No one should be persecuted and without a bit more information there's not much more I can say about persecution of gay people.

                  Finally, on to the illegal abortions, etc. when abortion was illegal. Perhaps, the people getting the abortions should feel guilty and remorseful. Just like we expect rehabilitated inmates to be. What we need to do is provide support for women who wouldn't have any recourse. Such as Shelters for Women.

                  --
                  "I said in my haste, All men are liars." Psalm 116:11
                  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday May 04, @04:11AM

                    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 04, @04:11AM (#675485) Journal

                    > you don't believe there's a God.

                    Hold up there. I do. I'm a Deist (panentheist, but who knows what that means?). YOU are the one who doesn't, actually, believe in God. You think you do, but your Yahweh is the only being that could possibly quality for the term "Devil with a capital D" I've ever heard of.

                    --
                    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday May 03, @10:40PM

                by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday May 03, @10:40PM (#675369)

                you don't believe there is a God

                I don't believe there is a god because nobody can seem to provide evidence of one.

                I mean, any god would do. Zeus, Osiris, Odin. Any god at all?

              • (Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Thursday May 03, @11:50PM (2 children)

                by SomeGuy (5632) on Thursday May 03, @11:50PM (#675397)

                The difference is that you don't believe there is a God or that the Bible is anything more than myths.

                There is no such thing as god, and your bible is nothing more than myths.

                I suppose someone needs to tell you about santa claus and the easter bunny.

                No, all facts are facts.

                As well as Fox News reporting...

                • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @01:43AM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @01:43AM (#675425)

                  I'll pray for you. :-)

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @02:22AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @02:22AM (#675440)

                    Replying to up the line. I am the AC he claimed is an atheist. However I follow Tunkashila. Jesus is as false to me as Mohammed or Yahweh. Your truth isn’t universal. Neither is mine.
                    But unlike you I believe fully in my ways. Enough so that I could care if you do.
                    This is why Jesus and Mohamed will fail. Force is used to control and control is not belief. It is fear.
                    One day I will join my Grandmothers and Grandfathers. But I could care if you do. That is your relation. Unimportant to me.

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday May 03, @10:12PM (3 children)

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 03, @10:12PM (#675354)

          The ending of a life that began at conception is no better nor worse than any other life ending. Including the mother's.

          There are circumstances where I think abortion should be allowed. But far fewer than most people would like. I certainly don't think that the convenience of the mother is a good enough reason. Yet some people who profess to be Christian get abortions when suddenly confronted with the problem and it is now a personal crisis to them.

          There is another thing that I consider. Legal or not, people always have and always will get abortions. I would rather there not be an abortion at all. But if there is one, would it be better in a medical facility or in a dark alley with a coat hanger?

          I would counsel people against getting an abortion. But I cannot make the decision for them. Even if it were not legal. I cannot force them to my will. I think the question here is should I able to force people to my wishes (even if I wanted to, which I do not). Similarly, I cannot make anyone believe and become a believer. They will or they won't. I have known people who had abortions. They may regret it. Or not.

          You can't legislate morality. You can only try to protect people from other people. But you cannot change what is inside. The darkness is still in there.

          A law against abortion, even at the national level, won't really change that much. Any more than prohibition. Any more than making marijuana illegal. Even with harsh prison sentences.

          The real battle is not in the physical realm. But it is so easy to lose sight of that.

          Just some thoughts.

          --
          ALL LIABILITY IS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED FOR PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH THAT RESULTS FROM READING THE SOURCE CODE.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday May 04, @04:16AM (2 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 04, @04:16AM (#675492) Journal

            Where, pray tell, *is* the "real battle?"

            Hint: an omniscient, omnipotent, *absolutely-sovereign* God does not have enemies, fight wars in heaven or otherwise, or engage in "battles." If your God is fighting, your God is not what he says he is.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @04:32AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, @04:32AM (#675499)

              Not only that, but even those commanded to wage his wars were stymied by enemies with iron chariots. Guess his wrath was no match for the height of military science at the time. Thank goodness that we have tanks and drones now to destroy his enemies with.

              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday May 04, @07:04PM

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 04, @07:04PM (#675813) Journal

                Ah, yes, Judges 1:19 :) I always found that one hilarious. Apparently Yahweh could be stopped cold by a single M1 Abrams tank. Some God he is...

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Thursday May 03, @08:54PM (1 child)

        by SomeGuy (5632) on Thursday May 03, @08:54PM (#675303)

        You may be very interested in what the Bible has to say about abortion,

        Because mud dwellers with imaginary magical beings whispering in their ears ~2000 years ago had such a vast understanding of biology?

        That book of bullshit ball gargling has absolutely NO PLACE IN ANY MODERN DISCUSSION! Especially something this important.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 07, @11:14AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 07, @11:14AM (#676610)

          Do you have any actual arguments, you know, that are not just Cognitive Dissonance and something a 13 year old on Reddit would post?

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday May 03, @07:12PM (9 children)

      by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 03, @07:12PM (#675243) Homepage Journal

      I'm definitely on the side of anti-abortion to a certain point. The exceptions are Mother's prerogative, if it would endanger her life. I.E. carrying the baby would have abnormal risk for them due to some medical reason. Also, if abortion would be a mercy to the child. I.E. some medical condition where the child won't live very long and / or they would be in pain their entire existence.

      Good for you. Since you feel that way, don't have an abortion unless the circumstances meet your criteria.

      As for anyone else, mind your own fucking business -- it's not your concern.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @07:41PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @07:41PM (#675267)

        I think that person chose their username ironically.

        • (Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday May 03, @07:47PM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 03, @07:47PM (#675269) Journal

          Based on past conversations with him, I think that person thinks "ironic" has something to do with the metal content of the thing in question...

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday May 03, @09:32PM (2 children)

          by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 03, @09:32PM (#675326) Homepage Journal

          Please explain your thought process.

          Nothing ironic about my username here:

          sanguine
          [sang-gwin]
            adjective
          1.
          cheerfully optimistic, hopeful, or confident:
          a sanguine disposition; sanguine expectations.

          Source: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sanguine [dictionary.com]

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @10:41PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @10:41PM (#675372)

            sigh, not you

          • (Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 04, @02:06AM

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday May 04, @02:06AM (#675433) Journal

            Oh thank god!

            I though you were one of those "vampire enthusiasts!"

            (not that there's anything wrong with it)

      • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 04, @01:33AM (3 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 04, @01:33AM (#675418) Journal

        Since it's none of my concern, then you'll agree that Planned Parenthood needs to be defunded. They have no business taking taxpayer money to do things that are none of the taxpayer's concern. Or - are you going to switch over to an authoritarian position now?

        I'm not opposed to all abortions, but I am most definitely oppposed to abortions for profit, abortions for convenience, and abortion on demand. We have a fucking baby-killing industry in this country. There aren't enough words to describe it, but we can start with detestable, deplorable, and disgusting. There are plenty of stories about young women who entered a PP facility for information, only to learn that "planned parenthood" offers virtually no services for the woman who wants to become a mother.

        Just consider that the most vocal advocate of abortion makes it's living off of abortions, while at the same time begging you and I for the money to keep it's franchises open.

        Women's rights, or money grubbing sons of bitches?

        --
        #eatyourliver #WalkAway #CTRLLeft
        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday May 04, @04:09AM (2 children)

          by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 04, @04:09AM (#675483) Homepage Journal

          I'm not opposed to all abortions, but I am most definitely oppposed to abortions for profit, abortions for convenience, and abortion on demand. We have a fucking baby-killing industry in this country. There aren't enough words to describe it, but we can start with detestable, deplorable, and disgusting. There are plenty of stories about young women who entered a PP facility for information, only to learn that "planned parenthood" offers virtually no services for the woman who wants to become a mother.

          Given your feelings, you should definitely never have an abortion.

          But what you think and feel about it is irrelevant to *anyone* else. What other people do with their bodies is none of your damn business.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 04, @04:27PM (1 child)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 04, @04:27PM (#675718) Journal

            Given my feelings, tax money should never be used to pay for an abortion UNLESS something like the mother's life is in danger. And, given that many other Americans feel the same way, that should be the law.

            Neither you nor I have the right to tell a woman that she can not ever abort a child. But, that woman doesn't have the right to demand that we pay for her abortion, unless she is willing to justify the abortion, and our responsibility in regards to funding her abortion.

            When someone comes to you, in person, asking for money, do you, or do you not, want to know WHY that person needs money?

            "To save my life" seems reasonably legit - I may well hand money over. I'll want some details, but that seems a legit reason to hand over cash money.

            "Because I'm not mature enough to handle my own problems" seems a lot less legit. I may not be willing to hand any money over.

            Roe vs Wade didn't establish that women may demand an abortion at any time, for any reason. It ONLY established that women might have a right to abort. Roe vs Wade didn't address funding at all. It doesn't even hint at taxpayers funding abortion on demand.

            Long story short - you need to back up and reconsider the demands made upon you and I as taxpayers, in the name of some imaginary rights that you seem to have defined very poorly.

            --
            #eatyourliver #WalkAway #CTRLLeft
            • (Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday May 04, @07:30PM

              by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 04, @07:30PM (#675825) Homepage Journal

              takyon writes:

              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

              The above is the TFS, copied here for your reference. What does your off-topic rant about tax money, especially given that the Hyde Amendment [wikipedia.org] (sadly, IMHO) prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions, and has done so for more than 20 years (since 1997) have to do with this new Iowa law?

              Regardless, your blather has zero to do with the topic at hand. You have no right to decide what other people do with their bodies. If you don't like how your state and local governments handle funding for health services, that's between you and your elected officials.

              tl;dr: Mind your own fucking business. If you don't like how your tax money is spent, I suggest you start a tax revolt. Perhaps they'll let you post to SN from prison.

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(1) 2