Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
Thanks Tree11Thanks

Thread: Iowa Bans Most Abortions As Governor Signs 'Heartbeat' Bill

  1. #1
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,302
    Thanks
    28046

    From
    On a hill

    Iowa Bans Most Abortions As Governor Signs 'Heartbeat' Bill

    May 5, 201811:22 AM ET
    SASHA INGBER

    Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed one of the country's most restrictive abortion bills into law on Friday.

    The so-called "heartbeat" legislation bans abortions once a fetal heartbeat has been detected, at about six weeks of pregnancy. Exceptions are made in cases of rape, incest or medical emergency.

    Republican state lawmakers worked late into the night this week to push the measure forward. During Tuesday's debate in the Statehouse, Rep. Sandy Salmon said, "A baby has become something we can throw away. This bill says it's time to change the way we think about unborn life."

    snip

    The legislation drew firm Republican support. Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst tweeted, "Glad to see Iowa leading the way and standing up for the most vulnerable in our society, the unborn. Thank you @IAGovernor for taking this important step forward in protecting life."

    https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...heartbeat-bill

  2. #2
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,302
    Thanks
    28046

    From
    On a hill
    Too bad conservatives dont extend that same concern for the born.

  3. #3
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    32,038
    Thanks
    379

    From
    Tennessee
    This will not hold up in court.

  4. #4
    Veteran Member Eve1's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    18,898
    Thanks
    12959

    From
    My own world
    Do people understand that a heart beat is not a life?

    The heart follows a pattern different than most muscles in the body. The beating of the heart itself is not regulated by the brain, but actually within the heart itself. The only function of the brain is tell the heart how fast it needs to beat. Nerve cells within the heart continue firing for an extended period of time, promoting the process of beating.

    For this reason, a heart that is removed from the body doesn't stop beating instantly. As long as it has enough ATP to provide energy and exposure to oxygen, it can beat without any regulation from a brain.

    By reasoning of this law the heart itself is a life when disconnected from the body and still beating. If that’s the case then in every heart transplant a doctor has taken a life from a body and in exchange has given someone else’s body a life. Now that just doesn’t make sense, does it?

    A heart bypass machine stops the heart from beating but keeps the body’s oxygen system functioning and thus the brain stays unharmed and alive. Does that mean that the person on the bypass is actually dead even though their heart has stopped beating? Willfully bringing someone off of bypass without a beating heart will result in having their brain function cease. Many families decide to turn off the machines and have this happen if the person will never be free from a breathing tube or bypass machine. Brain function can be sustained without the heart indefinitely so explain if the person on heart bypass machines is alive or dead? Have families deciding to turn off the machines committed murder?
    Last edited by Eve1; 7th May 2018 at 08:00 AM.
    Thanks from labrea

  5. #5
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,302
    Thanks
    28046

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Eve1 View Post
    Do people understand that a heart beat is not a life?

    The heart follows a pattern different than most muscles in the body. The beating of the heart itself is not regulated by the brain, but actually within the heart itself. The only function of the brain is tell the heart how fast it needs to beat. Nerve cells within the heart continue firing for an extended period of time, promoting the process of beating.

    For this reason, a heart that is removed from the body doesn't stop beating instantly. As long as it has enough ATP to provide energy and exposure to oxygen, it can beat without any regulation from a brain.

    By reasoning of this law the heart itself is a life when disconnected from the body and still beating. If that’s the case then in every heart transplant a doctor has taken a life from a body in exchange to give someone else’s body a life. Now that just doesn’t make sense, does it? A heart bypass machine stops the heart from beating to keep the body’s oxygen system functioning and thus the brain. Does that mean that the person on the bypass is actually dead? Willfully bringing someone off of bypass without a beating heart will result in having their brain function cease. Is it therefore murder because the person was dead at the moment the machine took over for the heart as brain function is not life a heart beat is life by this law?
    It does get complicated.

  6. #6
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    17,403
    Thanks
    7421

    From
    10 years later
    Quote Originally Posted by Eve1 View Post
    Do people understand that a heart beat is not a life?

    The heart follows a pattern different than most muscles in the body. The beating of the heart itself is not regulated by the brain, but actually within the heart itself. The only function of the brain is tell the heart how fast it needs to beat. Nerve cells within the heart continue firing for an extended period of time, promoting the process of beating.

    For this reason, a heart that is removed from the body doesn't stop beating instantly. As long as it has enough ATP to provide energy and exposure to oxygen, it can beat without any regulation from a brain.

    By reasoning of this law the heart itself is a life when disconnected from the body and still beating. If that’s the case then in every heart transplant a doctor has taken a life from a body in exchange to give someone else’s body a life. Now that just doesn’t make sense, does it? A heart bypass machine stops the heart from beating to keep the body’s oxygen system functioning and thus the brain. Does that mean that the person on the bypass is actually dead? Willfully bringing someone off of bypass without a beating heart will result in having their brain function cease. Is it therefore murder because the person was dead at the moment the machine took over for the heart? If brain function can be sustained without the heart what is a person on bypass? Is he alive or dead?
    Its science. Did you you expect them to understand?

  7. #7
    Veteran Member bonehead's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    15,310
    Thanks
    5689

    From
    south
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    Too bad conservatives dont extend that same concern for the born.
    ban abortions yet support the death penalty. seems illogical.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  8. #8
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    64,864
    Thanks
    32888

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    ban abortions yet support the death penalty. seems illogical.
    That is because the so-called "pro-life" movement is, for the most part, not pro-life but rather pro-birth. This is not universal, however, because Catholics in general oppose both abortion and the death penalty.

    As to the law articulated in the OP, it is blatantly unconstitutional.

  9. #9
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    46,330
    Thanks
    28363

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    That is because the so-called "pro-life" movement is, for the most part, not pro-life but rather pro-birth. This is not universal, however, because Catholics in general oppose both abortion and the death penalty.

    As to the law articulated in the OP, it is blatantly unconstitutional.
    Agree. Saw the Iowa state senators that pushed for this and even they said they want this pushed to the SC so they can re-litigate Roe v Wade. I suspect they hope a new court could overturn it.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey and Blueneck

  10. #10
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    64,864
    Thanks
    32888

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    Agree. Saw the Iowa state senators that pushed for this and even they said they want this pushed to the SC so they can re-litigate Roe v Wade. I suspect they hope a new court could overturn it.
    That is really all that is going on here ... more test cases, wasting taxpayer dollars.

    Not that I have any personal experience in this area, but my understanding is a woman can easily not know she is pregnant until 6 weeks into the pregnancy. This law is clearly designed to prevent all abortion (with stated exceptions), and that is facially unconstitutional.
    Thanks from bajisima and Coyote

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 49
    Last Post: 14th December 2016, 02:53 PM
  2. Replies: 40
    Last Post: 14th April 2016, 06:02 AM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 30th March 2016, 12:38 PM
  4. Arizona Governor Signs Controversial Abortion Bill Into Law
    By John Marston in forum Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 31st March 2015, 09:09 AM
  5. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 10th May 2011, 09:04 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed