gigabitdrew
New member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2013
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 4
- Location
- Mississippi
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Is a body with a heartbeat but no higher level brain functions, meaning you can't talk to it, it has no ideas about anything at all, a person or just a body?This really does not need to be complicated.... and this answer should fit most situations...
Once they find a heartbeat then it is time to protect the child. If there is no heartbeat, then it is just organic material that has the hope of being a child.... just a little further along than an unfertilized egg.
OK... so it is hard to get around the whole life begins at conception... but besides that... it holds up nicely.
This really does not need to be complicated.... and this answer should fit most situations...
Once they find a heartbeat then it is time to protect the child. If there is no heartbeat, then it is just organic material that has the hope of being a child.... just a little further along than an unfertilized egg.
OK... so it is hard to get around the whole life begins at conception... but besides that... it holds up nicely.
Just an easy way to draw a line in the sand... I can't give you a bunch of statistic, but when you are staring at a sonogram and you see that it has a heartbeat... at that time, then you know it is just a little person and not just fecal matter.
Aunt & Tired... it is just an easy way to draw a line in the sand... I can't give you a bunch of statistic, but when you are staring at a sonogram and you see that it has a heartbeat... at that time, then you know it is just a little person and not just fecal matter.
Also, the heartbeat falls around the 6-8 week timeframe... sometime a little earlier, and occasionally a little later... but still any and all rational decisions that need to be made about what needs to be done can surely be done prior to this time.
I'm no doctor, or scientist, or anything like that... just my 2 cents.
This really does not need to be complicated.... and this answer should fit most situations...
Once they find a heartbeat then it is time to protect the child. If there is no heartbeat, then it is just organic material that has the hope of being a child.... just a little further along than an unfertilized egg.
OK... so it is hard to get around the whole life begins at conception... but besides that... it holds up nicely.
Aunt & Tired... it is just an easy way to draw a line in the sand... I can't give you a bunch of statistic, but when you are staring at a sonogram and you see that it has a heartbeat... at that time, then you know it is just a little person and not just fecal matter.
Also, the heartbeat falls around the 6-8 week timeframe... sometime a little earlier, and occasionally a little later... but still any and all rational decisions that need to be made about what needs to be done can surely be done prior to this time.
I'm no doctor, or scientist, or anything like that... just my 2 cents.
Nothing about this topic is easy - that's why it's so hotly contested. You want me to consider it just because it seems 'less complicated' to you? . . . Not happening.
However, that does make me aware that perhaps there's a substantial number of people who want to draw a line and just picked something that seemed to suit their interests - just because . . . like some flippant notion when, supposedly, it's a dire and vital decision to make.
Flippant!? Just because I am honest about not backing up my opinion with some sudo-science?
I am neither flippant, nor am I just picking something to suit my interest... the heartbeat theory is actually a well thought out compromise... even if it is not accurately articulated here. My opinion is based on the flaky notion that just because the mother is the host to another life that it gives her the right to act only in her own interest. Should women who are pregnant have to have a blood test and have the father sign off on the abortion? The woman is a potential mother to growing fecal matter that may become a child... sometimes it is necessary to protect life-forms... even undeveloped ones... and even from their parents.
Most women don't even know they are pregnant until 8-10 weeks along. Unless they are carefully tracking their ovulation and fertility cycles rigorously, the majority of women don't realize they've even skipped a period.
I don't live under a rock... I have women in my life whom I love and adore.... I have seen them grow, and age... and have heard their trials and stories... I just don't believe your statement is true... that is unless the women you are talking about are drunk, high on who knows what, and partying all the time.
Any by your argument, a woman who doesn't know that she is pregnant until week 8-10 then is more than likely just using abortion as a means to end an unwanted pregnancy... there are a lot of other ways to accomplish that Before a child starts growing in her womb.
And let me clear something up... the mother's health should always come before the unborn child's... if the mother's health is in danger, then the heartbeat theory should not apply.
Honest is not mutually exclusive to honesty. When you justify your position with "it is just an easy way to draw a line in the sand.." without any consideration to the consequences of your position, you are certainly being flippant.
And Roe v Wade recognized that there is a significant governmental interest in protecting the potential life of persons, and used both law and tradition to determine that the constitution allowed the govt to protect that life, but only beginning at viability. IOW, they used more than "it is just an easy way to draw a line in the sand.."
SCOTUS was not flippant at all. You were.
Still flippant
And self-serving
Everyone is always unhappy about abortion. It's not a happy thing, it just is.Self-serving - Hmmm... I am looking to protect the rights of women, but at the same time protect the life of a child.... don't see it.
See, I think my compromise is a good one because both liberals and conservatives don't like it... it doesn't do enough for them... for liberals, it takes too much away from a woman's rights, and for conservatives it doesn't do enough to protect the child. You know you have a good compromise when both sides are unhappy about it.
I will just have to disagree... and state my apologies for not articulating my considerations to the consequences... just because they were not communicated does not mean they do not exist. My apologies for not doing a good job of sharing all the information you need to make a good well informed decision on my summation of an idea.
I did not state that anyone was flippant, only to rebuke the thought that I was because what I posted was the end result, and still in my opinion, a good compromise on the issue of abortion. It is truly my mistake for posting what I see as a answer without giving all of the information considered. I will gladly continue to provide answers as long as people have questions. I am here for you sir... allow me to share a different point of view than your own, and maybe your mind will grow.
As for Row vs Wade... I think that like all laws, they are brought up when there is a need, or want, for them to serve some purpose... some are good, some are not... but like many laws, sometimes they need to be tweaked. Our laws are made up by people with flaws... so imagine that we sometime find the need to tweak them. I am not suggesting that Row vs Wade be overturned... I am suggesting that laws be tweaked.
My opinion is based on the flaky notion that just because the mother is the host to another life that it gives her the right to act only in her own interest.
Nope
it doesn't become a little person until it's born and draws its' first breath
Self-serving - Hmmm... I am looking to protect the rights of women, but at the same time protect the life of a child.... don't see it.
See, I think my compromise is a good one because both liberals and conservatives don't like it... it doesn't do enough for them... for liberals, it takes too much away from a woman's rights, and for conservatives it doesn't do enough to protect the child. You know you have a good compromise when both sides are unhappy about it.
I wouldn't go with that line but the line has to be drawn. For thousands of years that has been a worthy game. Heartbeat? Quickening? Birth? Viability? Pick your poison.So two minutes before it is born it is not a person? I mean come on now.
This really does not need to be complicated.... and this answer should fit most situations...
Once they find a heartbeat then it is time to protect the child. If there is no heartbeat, then it is just organic material that has the hope of being a child.... just a little further along than an unfertilized egg.
OK... so it is hard to get around the whole life begins at conception... but besides that... it holds up nicely.
I wouldn't go with that line but the line has to be drawn. For thousands of years that has been a worthy game. Heartbeat? Quickening? Birth? Viability? Pick your poison.
By "self-serving" I didn't mean that it was necesarily good for you personally, but rather that it serves the purposes of your argument. It probably wasn't the best word to use.
But having people disagree with you doesn't mean that your position is the correct one. If you were to read Roe v Wade, you'd that the decision isn't based on what people think is right, but what powers the constitution grants the govt with respect to regulating or banning abortion. It is a well though out and reasoned balancing of the rights of individuals, and governmental interest in protecting potential life.
And viability, they say that a baby inside the womb can't sustain life, well guess what, they can't outside the womb either without the resources of the mother. Should we be able to kill those babies too? The arguments are ridiculous.
You need a mother? Nope, you need a caretaker. Viability is about can we take it out, cut the cord, and it will breath on its own? That's all. At that point, in this country, the state begins to have standing.And viability, they say that a baby inside the womb can't sustain life, well guess what, they can't outside the womb either without the resources of the mother. Should we be able to kill those babies too? The arguments are ridiculous.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?