Abortion is like "hiring a hitman" says Pope

[jmccr8]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Again, in my suggested  model the clone would not have any of its "own"  personality or identity before your memories were uploaded into it  (How this would be achieved is open to question but, for example, it could be grown in a "vat" with no external stimuli )

Hi Walker

We start experiencing life as soon as we are born so I have to ask at what stage of development would occupation of the body would you consider optimal?

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The clone would be "originated" by the original  human,  (as a child is) but once it had memories implanted in it, and was able to start thinking, it would be the same as any other human being, with identical rights.  It would be wrong to over ride one set of memories with another's, without informed consent.

That leads to another question because by law we in this country do not reach the age of consent until 16 yrs of age and by that time obviously a personality has formed and you would be replacing them through occupation which seems like death without killing. I also have to wonder if they would give consent once they have developed a personality, so then the question is are you prepared to take that away from them to satisfy your own need.

Note.. when I say you I am not inferring you as an individual.

jmccr8

[mindpurge]

On 12/10/2018 at 11:40 PM, Jenn8779 said:

Are you speaking from experience? I can't have children and I would personally never have an abortion if I was ever lucky enough to become pregnant. But I also would never judge anyone in a situation I don't have personal knowledge of. If you don't know their circumstances, how can you call them a murderer? I sincerely hope no one ever judges you on your life circumstances or choices that they have no personal knowledge or experience of

Their circumstances are irrelevant, although sometimes even murder can be justified, just not when it's an innocent being.

Look I get it, I do agree with some cases of abortion (deformity, extreme mental retardation, etc...) because those can and will be very burdensom on caretaker and person living through them.

I think the real question is, do you have an abortion just because you don't want a baby? My answer to that is a full fledged NO. Women do not even need to look at the baby they brought into the world, they can give birth & immediately give the baby up for adoption to hundreds of thousands of couples (both hetero and homo) that cannot have a baby. I know this because I went through it when I was 17 with my 15 year old girlfriend. We gave him up for adoption and the family that got him were in tears, literally crying and snotting all over the place in happyness.

Abortion should always, always, always be a last choice (which it isn't, but needs to be). Nobody can force you to keep the child, but mothers shouldn't have the right to terminate a childs life just because they don't want stretch marks or because they can't afford it. Have the baby, give it to someone that will cherish it. Everyone wins. The mother, the baby, the family.

Edited June 20, 2019 by mindpurge

[+Hammerclaw]

2 hours ago, mindpurge said:

Their circumstances are irrelevant, although sometimes even murder can be justified, just not when it's an innocent being.

Look I get it, I do agree with some cases of abortion (deformity, extreme mental retardation, etc...) because those can and will be very burdensom on caretaker and person living through them.

I think the real question is, do you have an abortion just because you don't want a baby? My answer to that is a full fledged NO. Women do not even need to look at the baby they brought into the world, they can give birth & immediately give the baby up for adoption to hundreds of thousands of couples (both hetero and homo) that cannot have a baby. I know this because I went through it when I was 17 with my 15 year old girlfriend. We gave him up for adoption and the family that got him were in tears, literally crying and snotting all over the place in happyness.

Abortion should always, always, always be a last choice (which it isn't, but needs to be). Nobody can force you to keep the child, but mothers shouldn't have the right to terminate a childs life just because they don't want stretch marks or because they can't afford it. Have the baby, give it to someone that will cherish it. Everyone wins. The mother, the baby, the family.

That's very moralistic and puerile--but at the end of the day, it's the woman's choice and a great many choose otherwise. A man having casual sex with a partner he's not wedded to isn't doing it to make babies, he's having fun. He's irresponsible, not using any protection, and has no right to ask the woman to bear the consequence of his inconsideration nine months while he goes on having fun with other partners. He cheapened the act of procreation for recreation and can't expect the woman to become moral about. It's her choice whether the seed he planted flowers, or withers and dies. If that bothers him, he should have kept his pecker in his pants or used a halo. 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Hammerclaw

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

*

 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Hammerclaw

[Stubbly_Dooright]

6 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

8 hours ago, mindpurge said:

Their circumstances are irrelevant, although sometimes even murder can be justified, just not when it's an innocent being.

Look I get it, I do agree with some cases of abortion (deformity, extreme mental retardation, etc...) because those can and will be very burdensom on caretaker and person living through them.

I think the real question is, do you have an abortion just because you don't want a baby? My answer to that is a full fledged NO. Women do not even need to look at the baby they brought into the world, they can give birth & immediately give the baby up for adoption to hundreds of thousands of couples (both hetero and homo) that cannot have a baby. I know this because I went through it when I was 17 with my 15 year old girlfriend. We gave him up for adoption and the family that got him were in tears, literally crying and snotting all over the place in happyness.

Abortion should always, always, always be a last choice (which it isn't, but needs to be). Nobody can force you to keep the child, but mothers shouldn't have the right to terminate a childs life just because they don't want stretch marks or because they can't afford it. Have the baby, give it to someone that will cherish it. Everyone wins. The mother, the baby, the family.

That's very moralistic and puerile--but at the end of the day, it's the woman's choice and a great many choose otherwise. A man having casual sex with a partner he's not wedded to isn't doing it to make babies, he's having fun. He's irresponsible, not using any protection, and has no right to ask the woman to bear the consequence of his inconsideration nine months while he goes on having fun with other partners. He cheapened the act of procreation for recreation and can't expect the woman to become moral about. It's her choice whether the seed he planted flowers, or withers and dies. If that bothers him, he should have kept his pecker in his pants or used a halo. 

I could just hug you!!!! 

Thank you for this post! I get frustratingly angry, when discussing the 'morals' of the woman when she gets pregnant. I'm sick and tired of leaving out the man and his 'morals', when he too, did the act to create that baby. More and more of this, needs to be brought up about the discussion and dictating of the actions of the man. 

Why is it, this is still a problem?? Illegalizing abortion, shaming the mother, doesn't work, without actually follow up on the actions of men and how they behave. 

Quote

It's her choice whether the seed he planted flowers, or withers and dies. If that bothers him, he should have kept his pecker in his pants or used a halo. 

Exactly!!! This bit here! Perfect!

 

[Jodie.Lynne]

I love how guys will say "ok, just carry the child for 9 months, no big deal, then give it up for adoption"

 

This, coming from men who think taking out the trash is a major undertaking....

 

How about, we put a 10 pound bowling bowl in YOUR gut, for 9 months?

[Michelle]

On 6/13/2019 at 12:52 AM, Sherapy said:

I said for me, if I was to choose that path 6 weeks would have been my personal cut off. I can’t speak for anyone else. 

 

Even though you wouldn't know it by her placating, I agree with her on this. Personally, I won't fight for someone else's rights on something I can't support. Much less spend hours on a website arguing about it.

[Mr Walker]

16 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Well, your opinion means nothing the actuality is a woman has the right to decide if she will carry the pregnancy to term, no matter what the circumstances.  

You have no say, Get over it. 

 

Typical  arrogant sherapy opinion. My pov  means as much as anyone else's.

At least  I do support legal and free access to abortions ( as is the case in Australia ) where there is a reasonable need for one  

No individual human's rights are absolute nor guaranteed. They  are moral and ethical constructs  given to us by our society, and can be withdrawn in the same way  They change constantly, over time 

And of course, not only DO i have a say, but  as a citizen I have the right to take action to support my views and to influence policy making. 

There  are  only a few places in the world where a woman has the complete right to decide to terminate a pregnancy, without any medical or social need to do so. 

The current status in California is as follows; 

California Abortion Laws: Related Resources

Abortion laws are constantly changing, especially as more time passes since the biggest abortion case, Roe v. Wade, was decided. Ever since then, abortion in the United States has been legal, and women have a right to choose whether to have an abortion during the early stages of her pregnancy. However, states are allowed to regulate certain aspects of abortion after the first trimester, such as imposing counseling, waiting periods, and other requirements. During the third trimester there is generally little or no legal way to have an abortion in most states (unless your life is in danger).

While you have the right to access a safe abortion, states are still allowed to place certain restrictions on that right, which can make the process of getting an abortion more difficult. While California provides greater access to abortion services than other states, it's an important decision with many legal facets. If you have questions about abortion access or other abortion-related concerns, it's a good idea to call a family law attorney near you today.

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-abortion-laws.html

[Mr Walker]

16 hours ago, Sherapy said:

It really doesn’t matter what you think, a woman does have the right to decide.

And yet, what i think along, with what others think, does matter. It is what the majority of people think and believe, that determines the laws and rules of a democracy which we both live under

Don't feel too comfortable and superior, just because, for now,you  live in one of the most liberal places in the world regarding rights to abortion. Nothing remains constant. 

Everyone only has the rights which others confer on them, allow them or give them.  Enjoy, for now, those rights others have allowed you 

[darkmoonlady]

6 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

And yet, what i think along, with what others think, does matter. It is what the majority of people think and believe, that determines the laws and rules of a democracy which we both live under

Don't feel too comfortable and superior, just because, for now,you  live in one of the most liberal places in the world regarding rights to abortion. Nothing remains constant. 

Everyone only has the rights which others confer on them, allow them or give them.  Enjoy, for now, those rights others have allowed you 

Like voting or having a bank accounts? Thanks this isn't Gilead. 

[Mr Walker]

On 20/06/2019 at 1:56 AM, Desertrat56 said:

You think that because you are a man.  You have never sat in a meeting with coworkers and made a suggestion that caused no reaction, then the man next to you makes the same suggestion, word for word, and gets a pat on the back and the decision is made to use "his" suggestion.    You have never had a strange man break in to your house to rape you then have the police tell you you are lying and that it is just a "lover's spat" and there is nothing they can do.  You have never been turned down for a tech job because you are a female over 50, with LOTS of relevant experience, but female just the same.  You are deluded if you think things have changed.

No it has nothing to do with being a man. I don't actually see humans as man or woman, black or white, but as equal human beings

I treat all people equally, and make no distinctions for gender or race, other then where physical requirements  make this necessary .

Everyone has different experiences in life, depending on both their physical characteristics and their attitude to life 

It s not being a man which dos anything to define me.

it is the values moralities ethics and standards i was raised to believe in as a child.

I think women are getting over the need to play a victim card, and are beginning to argue for TRUE equality of opportunity and treatment.

Ps my accountant,  bank manager, lawyer,  real estate agent, conveyancer,  plus many of my bosses and doctors are,  or were, women. Two  sisters and their mother own and run the local pub and most professional workers are women   

When i was married my wife could not get a passport or open a bank account without my permission.When i was a t school, women who married lost their jobs in all government departments and had to re-apply as married women, losing all previous benefits and rights.

  Society is simply totally different to those times  A woman who had an unmarried child was forced to do so in secret and to give the child up for adoption.  Women's pay rates were set much lower than  men's and,especially after the war, men were given priority  for work.

  Women had few opportunities for  independence and control of their sexuality and fertility,  and depended   on the nature of the men in their lives for the quality of their life.  There was no financial support for mothers,  so the y were dependent on a man.

A woman's work was very hard, with often no washing machines, refrigerators, or electric stoves, let alone convenience stores or take away food   Almost none owned a car or could drive .Further education was rare for women. For example my mother left school at 13 and went to work on the farm, riding horses, driving tractors, working machinery etc.  

[Mr Walker]

20 minutes ago, darkmoonlady said:

Like voting or having a bank accounts? Thanks this isn't Gilead. 

Like everything. All rights are conferred, based on construction of ideals, not innate. 

As above; in 1976 my wife could not open a bank account or get a passport unless i signed off on it.   It was around this time that that things began to change. I worked with the women's movement at Flinders uni to promote equality for women.

quote

Flinders University Art Museum Director Fiona Salmon notes that the University has long been committed to the inclusion and support of feminist thought and theory since the pioneering introduction of its Women’s Studies course in 1973.

https://news.flinders.edu.au/blog/2017/11/06/last-chance-see-images-1970s-feminism/

 

 

[+Sherapy]

38 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Typical  arrogant sherapy opinion. My pov  means as much as anyone else's.

At least  I do support legal and free access to abortions ( as is the case in Australia ) where there is a reasonable need for one  

No individual human's rights are absolute nor guaranteed. They  are moral and ethical constructs  given to us by our society, and can be withdrawn in the same way  They change constantly, over time 

And of course, not only DO i have a say, but  as a citizen I have the right to take action to support my views and to influence policy making. 

There  are  only a few places in the world where a woman has the complete right to decide to terminate a pregnancy, without any medical or social need to do so. 

The current status in California is as follows; 

California Abortion Laws: Related Resources

Abortion laws are constantly changing, especially as more time passes since the biggest abortion case, Roe v. Wade, was decided. Ever since then, abortion in the United States has been legal, and women have a right to choose whether to have an abortion during the early stages of her pregnancy. However, states are allowed to regulate certain aspects of abortion after the first trimester, such as imposing counseling, waiting periods, and other requirements. During the third trimester there is generally little or no legal way to have an abortion in most states (unless your life is in danger).

While you have the right to access a safe abortion, states are still allowed to place certain restrictions on that right, which can make the process of getting an abortion more difficult. While California provides greater access to abortion services than other states, it's an important decision with many legal facets. If you have questions about abortion access or other abortion-related concerns, it's a good idea to call a family law attorney near you today.

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-abortion-laws.html

Again, the law has spoken and your opinion is meaningless in the context of this topic. 

 

I’d say this conversation is a wrap.

[Mr Walker]

6 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Again, the law has spoken and your opinion is meaningless in the context of this topic. 

 

I’d say this conversation is a wrap.

And as the laws change ? Laws in a democracy are only the expressed will of the people. Thus every person's expressed opinion counts.  You seem to forget i actually support a woman's rights to abortion based on need.  

quote

NEW YORK (AP) — On each side of the abortion debate, legislators and activists emboldened by recent political developments plan to push aggressively in many states this year for bills high on their wish lists: either seeking to impose near-total bans on abortion or guaranteeing women’s access to the procedure.

For abortion opponents, many of whom will rally Friday at the annual March for Life in Washington, there’s a surge of optimism that sweeping abortion bans might have a chance of prevailing in the reconfigured U.S. Supreme Court that includes Donald Trump’s appointees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Legislators in at least five states — Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri, Florida and South Carolina — are expected to consider bills that would ban abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, possibly just six weeks into a pregnancy.

Conversely, results of the midterm elections buoyed supporters of abortion rights in several states, including New York, Rhode Island, Maryland and New Mexico. Abortion-rights groups there are now hopeful that lawmakers will pass bills aimed at protecting access to abortion even if the Supreme Court eventually reversed or weakened the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a nationwide right to abortion. Tuesday will mark the 46th anniversary of that ruling.

“With big electoral victories in state legislatures and governorships, many states are now primed to provide the last line of defense for a woman’s ability to control her body, life and future,” said Andrea Miller, president of the National Institute for Reproductive Health.

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/several-states-set-to-battle-over-abortion-bills-2019-01-16

Edited June 21, 2019 by Mr Walker

[+Sherapy]

37 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

And yet, what i think along, with what others think, does matter. It is what the majority of people think and believe, that determines the laws and rules of a democracy which we both live under

Don't feel too comfortable and superior, just because, for now,you  live in one of the most liberal places in the world regarding rights to abortion. Nothing remains constant. 

Everyone only has the rights which others confer on them, allow them or give them.  Enjoy, for now, those rights others have allowed you 

All you have shown with this post is how misogynist you are.

Roe V Wade stands.

Moving on. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+Sherapy]

4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

And as the laws change ?

Pay attention in the class junior, the actuality, is Roe V Wade stands. 

Moving on. 

[+Sherapy]

17 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Like everything. All rights are conferred, based on construction of ideals, not innate. 

As above; in 1976 my wife could not open a bank account or get a passport unless i signed off on it.   It was around this time that that things began to change. I worked with the women's movement at Flinders uni to promote equality for women.

quote

Flinders University Art Museum Director Fiona Salmon notes that the University has long been committed to the inclusion and support of feminist thought and theory since the pioneering introduction of its Women’s Studies course in 1973.

https://news.flinders.edu.au/blog/2017/11/06/last-chance-see-images-1970s-feminism/

 

 

And, how does this matter?

[+Sherapy]

31 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

No it has nothing to do with being a man. I don't actually see humans as man or woman, black or white, but as equal human beings

I treat all people equally, and make no distinctions for gender or race, other then where physical requirements  make this necessary .

Everyone has different experiences in life, depending on both their physical characteristics and their attitude to life 

It s not being a man which dos anything to define me.

it is the values moralities ethics and standards i was raised to believe in as a child.

I think women are getting over the need to play a victim card, and are beginning to argue for TRUE equality of opportunity and treatment.

Ps my accountant,  bank manager, lawyer,  real estate agent, conveyancer,  plus many of my bosses and doctors are,  or were, women. Two  sisters and their mother own and run the local pub and most professional workers are women   

When i was married my wife could not get a passport or open a bank account without my permission.When i was a t school, women who married lost their jobs in all government departments and had to re-apply as married women, losing all previous benefits and rights.

  Society is simply totally different to those times  A woman who had an unmarried child was forced to do so in secret and to give the child up for adoption.  Women's pay rates were set much lower than  men's and,especially after the war, men were given priority  for work.

  Women had few opportunities for  independence and control of their sexuality and fertility,  and depended   on the nature of the men in their lives for the quality of their life.  There was no financial support for mothers,  so the y were dependent on a man.

A woman's work was very hard, with often no washing machines, refrigerators, or electric stoves, let alone convenience stores or take away food   Almost none owned a car or could drive .Further education was rare for women. For example my mother left school at 13 and went to work on the farm, riding horses, driving tractors, working machinery etc.  

It is a different world, you need to get out more. 

 

 

[Mr Walker]

10 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

All you have shown with this post is how misogynist you are.

Roe V Wade stands.

Moving on. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not misogynist

Pro woman, but also pro child.

  Are  you seriously arguing that a woman has an unfettered right to abort any child for any reason, at any time during pregnancy,  or do you agree that unborn children do have some rights? 

 

[Mr Walker]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

It is a different world, you need to get out more. 

 

 

lol You are making my argument for me.

I was showing how, indeed, it is a VERY different world to that of the fifties and early sixties especially, but not only, for women . The other poster was arguing that nothing has changed . 

[Mr Walker]

13 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Pay attention in the class junior, the actuality, is Roe V Wade stands. 

Moving on. 

Look at my sources and quotes. New and conservative judges appointed by Trump  can change old laws  and make  new judgements. Nothing is static or guaranteed There are currently  bills in many states both liberalising and restricting women's rights to abortion. 

 

looking at the anti abortion ones 

RESTRICTING ABORTION ACCESS

OHIO: During eight years in office, GOP Gov. John Kasich signed more than 20 anti-abortion bills, but twice vetoed the most draconian measure to reach his desk — the so-called “heartbeat bill” that would ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected. But Kasich has now been succeeded by fellow Republican Mike DeWine, who suggests he will sign a heartbeat bill. And the proposal has finally won the endorsement of Ohio Right to Life, which previously considered it too contentious but now believes it has a chance of prevailing in court.

“With the additions of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, we believe this is the most pro-life court we have seen in generations,” said Ohio Right to Life board chairman Marshal Pitchford. “Now is the time to pursue this approach.”

KENTUCKY, MISSOURI, SOUTH CAROLINA, FLORIDA: Lawmakers in these states, where Republicans control the legislature and governor’s office, also have drafted heartbeat bills for consideration this year.

The South Carolina and Florida measures would require testing for a detectable fetal heartbeat prior to an abortion; anyone performing an abortion after a heartbeat was detected would be guilty of a felony. A similar measure has been filed in Missouri; its potential punishments include fines and suspension or withdrawal of medical licenses.

Kentucky already is entangled in three abortion-related court cases, but Senate Majority Leader Damon Thayer said he would be pleased if the heartbeat bill triggered additional litigation.

“I would be proud if it’s Kentucky that takes it all the way up to the Supreme Court and we challenge Roe v. Wade,” Thayer told reporters. “That would be absolutely the pinnacle of my career in the legislature.”

ARKANSAS: Like Kentucky, some of Arkansas’ previously approved anti-abortion laws remain caught up in legal fights. But two new measures were filed ahead of the 2019 session: One would toughen requirements for reporting abortion-related complications to state health officials; the other would prohibit doctors from performing an abortion if they know the woman seeks it solely because the fetus is diagnosed with Down syndrome.

Indiana, Louisiana and Ohio previously enacted bans on Down syndrome abortions which have been blocked in federal court. Indiana is asking the Supreme Court to review its case. North Dakota enacted a similar ban in 2013 that has not been challenged; the state’s sole abortion clinic says the issue hasn’t arisen under its policy of not performing abortions after 16 weeks into a pregnancy.

OKLAHOMA: A Republican state senator, Joseph Silk, has filed a bill that would include abortion in the state’s definition of felony homicide, potentially punishable by life in prison. Its chances of advancing are uncertain, but Oklahoma lawmakers did approve a bill two years ago that would have outlawed abortion and imposed prison sentences of up to three years on anyone performing the procedure.

That bill was vetoed by then-Gov. Mary Fallin. She has been succeeded by fellow Republican Kevin Stitt, who declined comment on Silk’s bill after it was filed.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/several-states-set-to-battle-over-abortion-bills-2019-01-16

 

[Mr Walker]

22 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

And, how does this matter?

It demonstrates how all our rights are artificial  constructs which are only enabled in law with the consent of a majority.  They are NOT absolute,  fixed, inalienable,  or inherent human rights. They are rights we construct and give to ourselves  and others 

In my life time, and indeed within the last 50 years, there have been huge changes in laws and rights. These will continue to change and evolve, and not always towards more liberal outcomes. 

i suspect women's rights have passed their high water mark, and are being overtaken by more general human rights, including the rights of the unborn, the rights of children and animals, and the rights of biological parents.  

Edited June 21, 2019 by Mr Walker

[+Sherapy]

22 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

lol You are making my argument for me.

I was showing how, indeed, it is a VERY different world to that of the fifties and early sixties especially, but not only, for women . The other poster was arguing that nothing has changed . 

 

24 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Not misogynist

Pro woman, but also pro child.

  Are  you seriously arguing that a woman has an unfettered right to abort any child for any reason, at any time during pregnancy,  or do you agree that unborn children do have some rights? 

 

MW, I am not interested in a continuing this conversation with you, you are not offering any insight or wisdom that is adding to the discussion for me.

Your opinion has been noted and discarded on my end.

If I come across anything that piques my interest  I will reach out. 

So for now, toodles.

 

Edited June 21, 2019 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

31 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Look at my sources and quotes. New and conservative judges appointed by Trump  can change old laws  and make  new judgements. Nothing is static or guaranteed There are currently  bills in many states both liberalising and restricting women's rights to abortion. 

 

looking at the anti abortion ones 

RESTRICTING ABORTION ACCESS

OHIO: During eight years in office, GOP Gov. John Kasich signed more than 20 anti-abortion bills, but twice vetoed the most draconian measure to reach his desk — the so-called “heartbeat bill” that would ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected. But Kasich has now been succeeded by fellow Republican Mike DeWine, who suggests he will sign a heartbeat bill. And the proposal has finally won the endorsement of Ohio Right to Life, which previously considered it too contentious but now believes it has a chance of prevailing in court.

“With the additions of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, we believe this is the most pro-life court we have seen in generations,” said Ohio Right to Life board chairman Marshal Pitchford. “Now is the time to pursue this approach.”

KENTUCKY, MISSOURI, SOUTH CAROLINA, FLORIDA: Lawmakers in these states, where Republicans control the legislature and governor’s office, also have drafted heartbeat bills for consideration this year.

The South Carolina and Florida measures would require testing for a detectable fetal heartbeat prior to an abortion; anyone performing an abortion after a heartbeat was detected would be guilty of a felony. A similar measure has been filed in Missouri; its potential punishments include fines and suspension or withdrawal of medical licenses.

Kentucky already is entangled in three abortion-related court cases, but Senate Majority Leader Damon Thayer said he would be pleased if the heartbeat bill triggered additional litigation.

“I would be proud if it’s Kentucky that takes it all the way up to the Supreme Court and we challenge Roe v. Wade,” Thayer told reporters. “That would be absolutely the pinnacle of my career in the legislature.”

ARKANSAS: Like Kentucky, some of Arkansas’ previously approved anti-abortion laws remain caught up in legal fights. But two new measures were filed ahead of the 2019 session: One would toughen requirements for reporting abortion-related complications to state health officials; the other would prohibit doctors from performing an abortion if they know the woman seeks it solely because the fetus is diagnosed with Down syndrome.

Indiana, Louisiana and Ohio previously enacted bans on Down syndrome abortions which have been blocked in federal court. Indiana is asking the Supreme Court to review its case. North Dakota enacted a similar ban in 2013 that has not been challenged; the state’s sole abortion clinic says the issue hasn’t arisen under its policy of not performing abortions after 16 weeks into a pregnancy.

OKLAHOMA: A Republican state senator, Joseph Silk, has filed a bill that would include abortion in the state’s definition of felony homicide, potentially punishable by life in prison. Its chances of advancing are uncertain, but Oklahoma lawmakers did approve a bill two years ago that would have outlawed abortion and imposed prison sentences of up to three years on anyone performing the procedure.

That bill was vetoed by then-Gov. Mary Fallin. She has been succeeded by fellow Republican Kevin Stitt, who declined comment on Silk’s bill after it was filed.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/several-states-set-to-battle-over-abortion-bills-2019-01-16

 

Walker, read these words, Roe V Wade stands.

There is no discussion. 

Other than that you  are trying to provoke controversy and conflict about political opinion. 

Not interested. 

 

 

[darkmoonlady]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No it has nothing to do with being a man. I don't actually see humans as man or woman, black or white, but as equal human beings

I treat all people equally, and make no distinctions for gender or race, other then where physical requirements  make this necessary .

Everyone has different experiences in life, depending on both their physical characteristics and their attitude to life 

It s not being a man which dos anything to define me.

it is the values moralities ethics and standards i was raised to believe in as a child.

I think women are getting over the need to play a victim card, and are beginning to argue for TRUE equality of opportunity and treatment.

Ps my accountant,  bank manager, lawyer,  real estate agent, conveyancer,  plus many of my bosses and doctors are,  or were, women. Two  sisters and their mother own and run the local pub and most professional workers are women   

When i was married my wife could not get a passport or open a bank account without my permission.When i was a t school, women who married lost their jobs in all government departments and had to re-apply as married women, losing all previous benefits and rights.

  Society is simply totally different to those times  A woman who had an unmarried child was forced to do so in secret and to give the child up for adoption.  Women's pay rates were set much lower than  men's and,especially after the war, men were given priority  for work.

  Women had few opportunities for  independence and control of their sexuality and fertility,  and depended   on the nature of the men in their lives for the quality of their life.  There was no financial support for mothers,  so the y were dependent on a man.

A woman's work was very hard, with often no washing machines, refrigerators, or electric stoves, let alone convenience stores or take away food   Almost none owned a car or could drive .Further education was rare for women. For example my mother left school at 13 and went to work on the farm, riding horses, driving tractors, working machinery etc.  

This is akin to saying I have black friends but vote for a candidate you know is racist. Just because you say you see women as equal you in the same breath don't believe we have the right to bodily autonomy. I'm never surprised by the "you have rights ..but". We have rights. One of them is safe and legal ability to control what happens to our bodies. Not the states or religious leaders or people who live across the country or next door. I have the right to control my own body and my own reproduction.