I can’t fit through the door to the sauna when I’m pregnant.
I agree with your post except for this part.
I’m reasonably sure that the courts frown on situations where law 1 says “you MUST spit on Wednesdays” and law 2 says “you must NOT spit on Wednesdays”. Resolving such dilemmas is one purpose for the existence of the court system.
Maybe “justifiable homicide” fits better than “murder”, or maybe just homicide. Seems to fit, your ciding a hominid and all.
I know, I know. I say murder, you say medical; and we all go out to eat and just forget somehow that sex leads to children until we’re walking through protesters at the only clinic in the region thinking about what we’ll write in the reason box on form 32b.
The courts will figure it out and some people will love it. Some people will hate it, and so on till someone trys again later.
Religion as a motivation to oppose, as mentioned up thread, may be the reason for some though it isn’t for all of us. Also, not everyone who opposes abortion terms it murder.
But you don’t need to figure out which law “makes sense” to determine the operative law. Whichever law is the more recent one takes precedent.
Pretty soon women and girls will go to jail every time they menstruate.
Really? That doesn’t sound right. I would think a conflicting law would have to be actually repealed. I’ve never heard of “most recent law takes precedence”.
Implied repeal. Note that it’s disfavored in the USA - if the legislature wants to repeal a law & replace it with a new one, they should explicitly do so, and generally do. In the absence of an explicit repeal, the court will first do their best to reconcile what the two laws say.
If a more recent law conflicts, then it does repeal the previous law.
I stand corrected.
I actually do know that. When most abortions take place, the fetus is the size of a thumbnail. And yeah, there’s a heartbeat – so? What about brain activity? I’m not an expert, but I doubt there’s not nearly as much of that. Hell, my cat probably is probably far more sentient than a fetus at six weeks.
Abortion methods? Yes, I’ve read of them. What of it? Late term abortions, if that’s what you’re speaking of, are pretty much only performed for medical reasons, if the mother’s health is in danger, or there’s some critically wrong with the fetus. I wonder if you know of some of these conditions. I’d suggest caution in researching them – some of the images can generate nightmares. (They’re far, far more disturbing than the alleged abortion photos that pro-lifers are so eager to display)
Besides, after reading your comments in the thread about the immigrant family that spent some money on pizza, I hope to god you don’t call yourself “pro-life”. You can’t call yourself pro-life if you only care about what happens before the kid’s born, and then fuss about a mother feeding her kid just enough not to starve to death.
Here are some specific, personal cases of parents who chose to abort very late in the pregnancy because the horrific tangle of defects and deformities didn’t show up clearly until that time (no unpleasant pics):
I found out I was pregnant at 8 weeks, and I’m damn lucky I found out then because it was a complete and total shock. I never was able to wrap my head around it before having a termination at 9 weeks, it was ectopic. Everything was said and done before I really knew what hit me.
A 6 week cutoff is insane.
I did not know this.
It appears there has been a stay that will prevent the law from taking effect on July 1. Iowa’s gvoernor, after consulting with the Iowa ACLU and others has agreed to stop things going forward, while both sides do further work.
Missed the edit window.
Question for debate: If this law really does prohibit abortions at 6 weeks of pregnancy, why is it an “undue burden” to require a sexually active woman to check if she is pregnant once per month if she wants to retain her “right” to an abortion? What is so terrible about a once a month minimal requirement, especially since under Casey, the State can favor life over abortion?
Well, perhaps a woman doesn’t want to register for a monthly check, proclaiming to all and sundry that she’s “screwing around”?(Just being a teensy bit sarcastic)
Would it be an undue burden for a MAN to have to apply for condoms, to show he’s going to be responsible and not try to leave the woman with the burden?
As my favorite VP candidate said during the debate in 1992, "What a woman does with her own body is her business, period.
Yes, it would be an undue burden. And I’m a person who doesn’t like abortion, and believes life begins at conception. But I’m not going to press that belief on someone else.
Why go to all that trouble? Would it be so bad if the government just issued morning after pills and women could just be required to take them once a month/after sex. Bam. No more abortions.
What’s the difference between a man going to a shop and buying some condoms and a woman going to a shop and buying a pregnancy testing kit?
If the woman finds she’s pregnant and doesn’t want to be, she goes to the pharmacist and buys an abortifactant.
Or am I overthinking things?
Where did you live that has OTC abortion drugs?