f7ben Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, Highmark said: Valid point Ben. Most hypocritical thing in America is our laws on fetal homicide. Read some of them. Unreal. Ala. Code § 13A-6-1 (2006) defines "person," for the purpose of criminal homicide or assaults, to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability and specifies that nothing in the act shall make it a crime to perform or obtain an abortion that is otherwise legal. Illinois Compiled Statute ch. 740 180/2 (2016) extends the statute of limitations for individuals who allegedly committed the intentional homicide of an unborn child, voluntary manslaughter of an unborn child and involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide of an unborn child. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/9-1.2, § 5/9-2.1 and § 5/9-3.2 define intentional homicide of an unborn child, voluntary manslaughter of an unborn child, involuntary manslaughter and reckless homicide of an unborn child, respectively. The laws define "unborn child" as any individual of the human species from fertilization until birth. The laws also specify that these provisions do not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion to which the pregnant woman has consented or to acts which were committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice during testing or treatment. (2000 Ill. Laws, P.A. 91-404; 2010 Ill. Laws, P.A. 96-1000) exactly.....its fucking insane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 4 minutes ago, Highmark said: I didn't dodge the question. As a start I'd like to see second and third trimester abortions made illegal. Eventually I'd like to see abortions past a heartbeat made illegal but I'm willing to work up to that. When discussing abortion actual pictures of its cruelty are not disingenuous at all. Its factual no matter where they are taken. Do you doubt aborted babies have much different fate in America? I mean after they harvest what they need for sale. Yes you did. Second trimester ban would never happen. The viability of a fetus outside the mother is a major point of definition. The transition happens well into the 2nd. Also the fetus pain bans are mid 2nd trimester as well. Yes, the one you posted most certainly is. Yes, many states do not permit the fetus to be aborted at a such late terms as the picture depicts. Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted June 28, 2018 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 28, 2018 1 minute ago, NaturallyAspirated said: Yes you did. Second trimester ban would never happen. The viability of a fetus outside the mother is a major point of definition. The transition happens well into the 2nd. Also the fetus pain bans are mid 2nd trimester as well. Yes, the one you posted most certainly is. Yes, many states do not permit the fetus to be aborted at a such late terms as the picture depicts. Neal 9 states and DC does allow it basically at any time. 3 others up to 28 weeks. 26 more up to 26 weeks. 8 more up to 22 weeks. Only 4 ban under 20 and I think a few of those have been blocked as has many of the other mentioned states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 1 minute ago, Highmark said: 9 states and DC does allow it basically at any time. 3 others up to 28 weeks. 26 more up to 26 weeks. 8 more up to 22 weeks. Only 4 ban under 20 and I think a few of those have been blocked as has many of the other mentioned states. Rolling back from the 28 weeks to 12 weeks just isn't going to happen. No state has first trimester bans. South Dakota tried and even the dyed in the wool conservatives revolted, gained the signatures, and voted to repeal the law, in under a year. Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted June 28, 2018 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 28, 2018 1 minute ago, NaturallyAspirated said: Rolling back from the 28 weeks to 12 weeks just isn't going to happen. No state has first trimester bans. South Dakota tried and even the dyed in the wool conservatives revolted, gained the signatures, and voted to repeal the law, in under a year. Neal I know its a long shot but until yesterday there was zero chance. At least now there is hope. A great first step would be letting the states decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 8 minutes ago, Highmark said: I know its a long shot but until yesterday there was zero chance. At least now there is hope. A great first step would be letting the states decide. There isn't hope either way. The states already decided the specifics. It is unlikely that either R v W and PP v Casey would be done away with. That will hold up the states rights to choose, and that viability (middle of 2nd trimester) is a major center for the limiting of abortions. Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted June 28, 2018 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 28, 2018 Just now, NaturallyAspirated said: There isn't hope either way. The states already decided the specifics. It is unlikely that either R v W and PP v Casey would be done away with. That will hold up the states rights to choose, and that viability (middle of 2nd trimester) is a major center for the limiting of abortions. Neal I disagree. Hope might be limited but at least its there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 If I were a Republican I would shelf the R v W worry and focus more on the issues of communications privacy rights, and whatnot. It could easily be seen to end up with a loud R v W trumpet, and someone who tears down the 4th. Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 Just now, Highmark said: I disagree. Hope might be limited but at least its there. You are better off hoping that Hillary runs for president again... Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 Roe was a fucking horrible decision that had no precedent and should be tossed. Its fucking garbage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 1 minute ago, f7ben said: Roe was a fucking horrible decision that had no precedent and should be tossed. Its fucking garbage So states should allow for cases of rape but not cases of simple unwanted pregnancies? Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 1 minute ago, NaturallyAspirated said: So states should allow for cases of rape but not cases of simple unwanted pregnancies? Neal Its a states issue and to have made it a privacy issue was disingenuous and created a precedent out of judicial activism not legal authority based on sound interpretation of written law. It was garbage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 Just now, f7ben said: Its a states issue and to have made it a privacy issue was disingenuous and created a precedent out of judicial activism not legal authority based on sound interpretation of written law. It was garbage Perhaps, but it nipps the neverending hole of discrimination in the bud. It's a good decision in that it forces states, if they so choose to allow abortions to take place, and when, to all women not just a select group. I don't see a basic framework for states to operate in as a bad thing. R v W would fit into that in an anti-discrimination point. Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 35 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said: Perhaps, but it nipps the neverending hole of discrimination in the bud. It's a good decision in that it forces states, if they so choose to allow abortions to take place, and when, to all women not just a select group. I don't see a basic framework for states to operate in as a bad thing. R v W would fit into that in an anti-discrimination point. Neal I would like to see a constitutional amendment granting a person individuality and human rights at a certain juncture of gestation. Sometime in the middle to late 2nd trimester. To get an abortion after that instance would have to be a big deal and it would have to be because the mother would not live through the pregnancy. To limit abortions prior to that point conversely would also have to be a big deal and states would need to bring a sound case to have any limitations upheld. Of course arguing all of this is moot because those that capitalize on wedge social issues are also those that make the laws and they have no motivation at all to do whats right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 Justin says, "my body, my choice". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mileage Psycho Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 4 hours ago, Snake said: The democrats really fucked themselves with that rule change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted June 28, 2018 Author Share Posted June 28, 2018 1 minute ago, Mileage Psycho said: The democrats really fucked themselves with that rule change. Zero big picture thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 2 hours ago, Snake said: so trump isn't separating kids from their parents. it's all made up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 the girl really wasn't looking at trump either when she was crying in case you want to get a little more cunty... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKIQPilot Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 1 minute ago, Snoslinger said: so trump isn't separating kids from their parents. it's all made up? Correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, AKIQPilot said: Correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 17 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said: The democrats really fucked themselves with that rule change. 14 minutes ago, Snake said: Zero big picture thinking. My thoughts exactly. No ability to think long term. But it's the current way of thinking for most of the voting population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 3 hours ago, Snake said: Slightly different as the child is involved with our immigration system, and we have a problem of separating children from their parents with our immigration system. Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 3 hours ago, f7ben said: whoa......Neal just got smacked the fuck down hard. I recall him going on about artistic license etc etc when the time cover photographer used that pic That wasn't me, I said it was not a huge intellectually dishonest thing to do, certainly not as far out as someone posting a picture from another country, and trying to pawn it off as something that happens here. They are different. Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKIQPilot Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 1 minute ago, NaturallyAspirated said: Slightly different as the child is involved with our immigration system, and we have a problem of separating children from their parents with our immigration system. Neal How exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.