Kentucky GOP Leader Thinks Fetal Viability Begins at Conception

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
94,011
Reputation
3,915
Daps
167,530
Reppin
Brooklyn
Kentucky GOP Leader Thinks Fetal Viability Begins at Conception
By Ed Kilgorepatronizing opinion in a case upholding a federal “partial-birth abortion” ban.

But Kentucky senate president Robert Stivers has come up with an even craftier bit of legerdemain in defense of a bill to outlaw abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, which is suddenly on the brink of passage following Republican legislative gains on November 8:

Stivers said his personal preference would be to ban abortions starting at a date before 20 weeks.

“This is my belief: there are two viable beings involved,” he said. “One had a choice early on to make a decision to conceive or not. Once conception starts, another life is involved, and the legislature has the ability to determine how that life proceeds.”
Fetal viability (the ability to survive outside the womb) is, of course, the linchpin of the constitutional right to abortion. Restrictions prior to fetal viability are never constitutional, though the standard shifted somewhat in the 1992 Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which in recognition of medical advances abandoned the strict trimester system for determining viability.

Antiabortion activists would dearly love to secure a judicial standard that significantly reduced the period of pre-viability. But since the medical profession isn’t cooperating with that aspiration, right-to-lifers have sought different rationales for banning earlier abortion, most notably the claim (disputed heatedly by most physicians and scientists) that the fetus can feel pain after 20 weeks.

But so far as I know, the very different conflation of conception with viability that Stiver (assuming he didn’t just mix up his buzzwords) attempted is a new one. If a zygote were in fact “viable,” then you might have the sort of competing interests that would in theory justify legislative intervention, though even then a health exception (which the Kentucky bill does not provide in its 20-week ban) would be required to pass constitutional muster. But obviously this is to change the word “viable” into something nonsensical.

Stivers goes on, of course, to add insult to ignorance by suggesting that the “right to choose” is exhausted at the moment the woman involved makes “a decision to conceive.” From then on, her body belongs to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Stivers is thus just asserting his property rights on Kentucky’s behalf.

Kentucky GOP Leader Thinks Fetal Viability Begins at Conception

thoughts?

@tru_m.a.c @Hollywood Hogan @Regular_P @ThreeLetterAgency @Dr. Sebi Jr. @Thomas
 

David_TheMan

Banned
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
40,574
Reputation
-3,333
Daps
89,592
Where ever it starts the government has no right to tell a woman what she must do with her body.
 

Maschine_Man

Banned
Supporter
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
14,526
Reputation
-5,595
Daps
16,078
Where ever it starts the government has no right to tell a woman what she must do with her body.
At a certain point there is an actual baby though. At like 22 weeks the fetus can survive outside the womb. Which is where the cutoff should be.

If a woman hasn't made up her mind by then.....too bad
 

EndDomination

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
31,857
Reputation
7,427
Daps
111,963
At a certain point there is an actual baby though. At like 22 weeks the fetus can survive outside the womb. Which is where the cutoff should be.

If a woman hasn't made up her mind by then.....too bad
:camby:
 

David_TheMan

Banned
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
40,574
Reputation
-3,333
Daps
89,592
At a certain point there is an actual baby though. At like 22 weeks the fetus can survive outside the womb. Which is where the cutoff should be.

If a woman hasn't made up her mind by then.....too bad
I disagree at no point should the government have a right to usurp the will of a person's own body. Giving any state that power is more dangerous than the woman evicting a child from her body prematurely.
 

Maschine_Man

Banned
Supporter
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
14,526
Reputation
-5,595
Daps
16,078
I disagree at no point should the government have a right to usurp the will of a person's own body. Giving any state that power is more dangerous than the woman evicting a child from her body prematurely.
She can do whatever she wants, but at what point is it a crime....that's the point.

Ppl just can't kill babies. That's why the cutoff should be at the time that a baby can survive outside the womb...essentially making it a baby.
 

David_TheMan

Banned
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
40,574
Reputation
-3,333
Daps
89,592
She can do whatever she wants, but at what point is it a crime....that's the point.

Ppl just can't kill babies. That's why the cutoff should be at the time that a baby can survive outside the womb...essentially making it a baby.

How can it be a crime for a woman choosing that she doesn't want a child in her, its her body, its her choice and I don't see that as a crime, evicting a child out of her body, so that is the point to me.
I don't want or advocate people killing children, but no one has a right to claim they control another person's body and that person should have to carry a child they don't want or face imprisonment or possibly death.
If a baby can survive outside the womb and someone wants to adopt the baby and the mother agrees fine, if they mother wants to abort, I simply see no way she could ethically be stopped from doing so without exposing society to greater harm in giving authority to the government.
 

Maschine_Man

Banned
Supporter
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
14,526
Reputation
-5,595
Daps
16,078
How can it be a crime for a woman choosing that she doesn't want a child in her, its her body, its her choice and I don't see that as a crime, evicting a child out of her body, so that is the point to me.
I don't want or advocate people killing children, but no one has a right to claim they control another person's body and that person should have to carry a child they don't want or face imprisonment or possibly death.
If a baby can survive outside the womb and someone wants to adopt the baby and the mother agrees fine, if they mother wants to abort, I simply see no way she could ethically be stopped from doing so without exposing society to greater harm in giving authority to the government.
If a woman hasn't made up her mind by 20-22 weeks....which is over 5 months!!!! Then it's just too late. When is the cutoff? 42 weeks? 54 weeks? 170?

For real, what do you think they do with late term abortions? They basically have a full birth....
 

David_TheMan

Banned
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
40,574
Reputation
-3,333
Daps
89,592
If a woman hasn't made up her mind by 20-22 weeks....which is over 5 months!!!! Then it's just too late. When is the cutoff? 42 weeks? 54 weeks? 170?

For real, what do you think they do with late term abortions? They basically have a full birth....
I don't think there should ever be a cutoff actually, unless the woman agrees to have the child early or agrees to carry to term and give up for adoption, I don't think the government has a right to impose any cutoff date or mandate a woman carry a chld to term or anything like that.

I think late term abortions are disgusting and I honestly think life starts at inception, but I'm content to let people try to talk people out of it than using force of the government to mandate what a person can do with their body.
 

Meta Reign

I walk the streets like, ''say something, n!gga!''
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
3,224
Reputation
-3,606
Daps
6,601
Reppin
Franklin ave.
How can it be a crime for a woman choosing that she doesn't want a child in her, its her body, its her choice and I don't see that as a crime, evicting a child out of her body, so that is the point to me.
I don't want or advocate people killing children, but no one has a right to claim they control another person's body and that person should have to carry a child they don't want or face imprisonment or possibly death.
If a baby can survive outside the womb and someone wants to adopt the baby and the mother agrees fine, if they mother wants to abort, I simply see no way she could ethically be stopped from doing so without exposing society to greater harm in giving authority to the government.
Yea it's her body, but what about the baby's body? At what point is that person owed their right to life? Thus owed the protection of the law? This is a person who is completely defenseless. A person who feels ALL of the same things you do but can't verbalize it. Are they not owed protection?

Have you never asked yourself this question?
 

hashmander

Hale End
Supporter
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
21,262
Reputation
5,577
Daps
91,293
Reppin
The Arsenal
combine forced births with cuts in medicaid, food stamps and all that and this shyt is gonna be GLORIOUS. interesting times indeed.
 
Top