• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Heartbeat theory

Dragonfly said:
Do you want this guy telling you what you can and can't do from a moral perspective?
_45936968_-6.jpg


My guess is you'd say "no".

Many of us don't want this guy telling us such things either.

ens_031413_pope.jpg


And we don't think this guy should either.

www-st-takla-org___jesus-crown-of-thorns-09.jpg


But if you want to live that way have at it.

That's the beauty of "choice".

You can live according to your beliefs, and I can live according to mine.

And to be clear, I've never had to make a choice between having a child or aborting a pregnancy.
And I'm no longer capable of ever being in the position to need to make that choice.

I do however have daughters who are of child bearing age, and I don't think you or anyone else has any right to tell them what to do with their bodies or choices regarding something so personal and private.
Click to expand...

And what did that comment have anything to do with what I stated? I didn't even bring religion into this thread. I pointed out that the viability argument is ridiculous. It's not just the woman's body mind you.
 
Dragonfly said:
If that's what YOU believe fine. Enjoy life and many happy returns.

However - I would strongly object to you suggesting that all other people must live their lives according to your beliefs.

How would you feel about living your life according to what a Jehovah's Witness believes? Or perhaps a Westboro Baptist's beliefs?

You as an individual can be against any and all abortion until the cows come home. Just don't expect others to follow in your footsteps on that particular road without a fight.
Click to expand...

So where does civil responsibility come into play... or should anarchy reign?
 
Dragonfly said:
I do however have daughters who are of child bearing age, and I don't think you or anyone else has any right to tell them what to do with their bodies or choices regarding something so personal and private.
Click to expand...

What about the gentleman that would have been involved? Do your daughters have the right to chose for them? A young man gets your daughter pregnant, she doesn't want the child but he does... is it still personal and private to just her? Just because she is the host/mother, does not rid her of the civil responsibility to others.... that would include a unborn child at some point... i'm just saying that I it makes sense for that line in the sand to be when their is a detectable heartbeat.
 
Dragonfly said:
So the only logical choice is believe what you believe or anarchy?
Click to expand...

No... just asking... when does civil responsibility come into play? Or does responsibility ever come into play here?
 
davidtaylorjr said:
And what did that comment have anything to do with what I stated? I didn't even bring religion into this thread. I pointed out that the viability argument is ridiculous. It's not just the woman's body mind you.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to suggest religion isn't at the very heart of the entire abortion/choice debate?

Viability is in no way a ridiculous argument. Makes tons of sense actually.
 
gigabitdrew said:
I will just have to disagree...

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.
Click to expand...

It is important to understand that Roe vs Wade is not a law and therefore it cannot be tweaked .
Roe vs Wade is a Supreme Court decision asserting that abortion is a part of the zone of right to privacy in regards to reproductivity.
The precedent for the right to privacy regarding a womens body and her reproductivity was established in 1965 which was 8 years before Roe vs Wade when the Supreme Court decided that women/ couples had a right to use contraception without having to be counseled.
 
Last edited:
TiredOfLife said:
Timing is everything.
Click to expand...

Is the world perfect? Black & white? Accidents never happen? People are smart? All people who give birth are wonderful and nurturing parents? Nobody ever neglects or abuses children?
 
davidtaylorjr said:
So two minutes before it is born it is not a person? I mean come on now.
Click to expand...

According to the laws in the USA until it is born it is not a person.
However , once viable states may take a compelling interest in the potential life/ potential person.
 
Last edited:
Dragonfly said:
Is the world perfect? Black & white? Accidents never happen? People are smart? All people who give birth are wonderful and nurturing parents? Nobody ever neglects or abuses children?
Click to expand...
The Parental Argument for abortion is actually an argument for Eugenics, and boy do we need it. Most of these morons should never be allowed to reproduce but that's life on this rock.
 
minnie616 said:
It is important to understand that Roe vs Wade is not a law and therefore it cannot be tweaked .
Roe vs Wade is a Supreme Court decision asserting that abortion is a part of the zone of right to privacy in regards to reproductivity.
The president for the right to privacy regarding a womens body and her reproductivity was established in 1965 which was 8 years before Roe vs Wade when the Supreme Court decided that women/ couples had a right to use contraception without having to be counseled.
Click to expand...

Valid point, but that decision does affect what laws can, and cannot, regulate... and I'm suggesting that the heartbeat theory be used as a compromise to the timeline of when an abortion can take place.... to be used as a "line in the sand" to aid in protecting the rights of both the woman AND the child.
 
TiredOfLife said:
That's incorrect. It depends on the state and the status of the fetus at the time.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY! My state tried to make this at the time of conception... thankfully, IMHO, that failed... BUT, I do think more needs to be done to protect the lives of late term abortions... even 2nd term... that is why the heartbeat theory makes more sense... it is a compromise.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
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.
Click to expand...

No your argument is ridiculous.
A pre viable fetus is completely dependent on the bio mother for her life forces.
If she dies before it is viable there is no way it can be saved.
However once the fetus reaches viability it has a good chance of surviving even if the bio mother dies.
If removed in a timely manner and given medical aid if needed it can survive without the bio mother.
Nurses, the father, a grandparent, an adoptive paren, a foster parent , or a caretaker can feed and take of it.
 
gigabitdrew said:
EXACTLY! My state tried to make this at the time of conception... thankfully, IMHO, that failed... BUT, I do think more needs to be done to protect the lives of late term abortions... even 2nd term... that is why the heartbeat theory makes more sense... it is a compromise.
Click to expand...

Here's my view on this whole subject.
 
gigabitdrew said:
Valid point, but that decision does affect what laws can, and cannot, regulate... and I'm suggesting that the heartbeat theory be used as a compromise to the timeline of when an abortion can take place.... to be used as a "line in the sand" to aid in protecting the rights of both the woman AND the child.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court already drew the line in sand and that line is viability.

States may make laws regarding abortion during the first two trimesters only to protect the health of woman according to Roe vs Wade.
 
minnie616 said:
The Supreme Court already drew the line in sand and that line is viability.

States may make laws regarding abortion during the first two trimesters only to protect the health of woman according to Roe vs Wade.
Click to expand...
A pretty good compromise actually but Pro-Life people aren't capable of that. If they were they'd know that life is not that simple and they wouldn't be Pro-Life.
 
gigabitdrew said:
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.
Click to expand...

What in the world are you talking about? Not every woman has a regular menstrual cycle every 28 days for 5 days. Many, many, many healthy women regularly skip periods, many women have one more period once they are pregnant, there are many causes of skipped periods not at all related to pregnancy, so it is entirely possible that a missed period is not noticed until the second missed period (which would be 8 weeks or so). Early pregnancy is not easily determined. Since the fetus doesn't move and symptoms are not always present, how exactly would a woman with infrequent periods know she's pregnant? Birth control isn't 100% effective and sometimes fails and even with the best, most proactive birth control methods sometimes fail.

Beyond that, SCOTUS has already determined that a woman does have a protected right to seek to terminate her pregnancy up to 24 weeks. Period. It is up to the woman and her doctor to determine when abortion is the correct choice.
 
minnie616 said:
No your argument is ridiculous.
A pre viable fetus is completely dependent on the bio mother for her life forces.
If she dies before it is viable there is no way it can be saved.
However once the fetus reaches viability it has a good chance of surviving even if the bio mother dies.
If removed in a timely manner and given medical aid if needed it can survive without the bio mother.
Nurses, the father, a grandparent, an adoptive paren, a foster parent , or a caretaker can feed and take of it.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that as medical technologies advance, and modern medicine is able to sustain the fetus earlier and earlier that the 24 week timeframe should be revisited?
 
SassySmartie said:
What in the world are you talking about? Not every woman has a regular menstrual cycle every 28 days for 5 days. Many, many, many healthy women regularly skip periods, many women have one more period once they are pregnant, there are many causes of skipped periods not at all related to pregnancy, so it is entirely possible that a missed period is not noticed until the second missed period (which would be 8 weeks or so). Early pregnancy is not easily determined. Since the fetus doesn't move and symptoms are not always present, how exactly would a woman with infrequent periods know she's pregnant? Birth control isn't 100% effective and sometimes fails and even with the best, most proactive birth control methods sometimes fail.

Beyond that, SCOTUS has already determined that a woman does have a protected right to seek to terminate her pregnancy up to 24 weeks. Period. It is up to the woman and her doctor to determine when abortion is the correct choice.
Click to expand...

I am saying that the 24 week timeframe should be reduced, and I think that the compromise between the existing 24 weeks and conception would be at the point there is a heartbeat. Anyone who has ever seen a sonogram and seen it register a heartbeat would tell you that heartbeat belongs on a life... and one that may need protecting... even if it is from its host that it depends on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom