SB 90 passed the Senate on a vote of 39 – 11. Prior to performing an abortion, the bill requires a woman’s physician to tell her that her fetus might feel pain; that she can put it up for adoption (and maybe even get that paid for if she’s just murdering her fetus because she’s cheap); that she might die if she gets an abortion; and that human life begins at conception.
I for one want to thank the Indiana Senate for settling the vexatious philosophical question of when human life begins. Now, if they could get back to legislating the value of pi so it didn’t have all of those digits.
3.1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128 4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196 4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091 4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 0249141273 7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436 7892590360 0113305305 4882046652 1384146951 9415116094 3305727036 5759591953 0921861173 8193261179 3105118548 0744623799 6274956735 1885752724 8912279381 8301194912 9833673362 4406566430 8602139494 6395224737 1907021798 6094370277 0539217176 2931767523 8467481846 7669405132 0005681271 4526356082 7785771342 7577896091 7363717872 1468440901 2249534301 4654958537 1050792279 6892589235 4201995611 2129021960 8640344181 5981362977 4771309960 5187072113 4999999837 2978049951 0597317328 1609631859 5024459455 3469083026 4252230825 3344685035 2619311881 7101000313 7838752886 5875332083 8142061717 7669147303 5982534904 2875546873 1159562863 8823537875 9375195778 1857780532 1712268066 1300192787 6611195909 2164201989 3809525720 1065485863 2788659361 5338182796 8230301952 0353018529 6899577362 2599413891 2497217752 8347913151 5574857242 4541506959 5082953311 6861727855 8890750983 8175463746 4939319255 0604009277 0167113900 9848824012 8583616035 6370766010 4710181942 9555961989 4676783744 9448255379 7747268471 0404753464 6208046684 2590694912 9331367702 8989152104 7521620569 6602405803 8150193511 2533824300 3558764024 7496473263 9141992726 0426992279 6782354781 6360093417 2164121992 4586315030 2861829745 5570674983 8505494588 5869269956 9092721079 7509302955 3211653449 8720275596 0236480665 4991198818 3479775356 6369807426 5425278625 5181841757 4672890977 7727938000 8164706001 6145249192 1732172147 7235014144 1973568548 1613611573 5255213347 5741849468 4385233239 0739414333 4547762416 8625189835 6948556209 9219222184 2725502542 5688767179 0494601653 4668049886 2723279178 6085784383 8279679766 8145410095 3883786360 9506800642 2512520511 7392984896 etc.
Put it up for adoption? A less than 12 week old fetus?! I’d like to see the incubator that could keep it alive. Because it is *not* going to gestate in my uterus, thankyouverymuch.
And that “human life” begins at conception crap? Apparently it’s inconceivable that some people do not believe that to be true. There’s no universally accepted definition of what constitutes “human life,” nor is there anything approaching scientific consensus on when it begins.
Wilson–are you sure about the value in the 438 position. On a more serious note–not really–To think there are people who have memorized the above information.
I would like a goddamn refund on my state taxes for all the time being wasted on this bloody shirt issue.
Why is a lunatic fringe allowed to highjack the legislative process when we have real problems to deal with?
For those prolifers out there, if you don’t like abortion, DONT HAVE ONE!!!!
Shelly,
WHEN an incubator that could keep it alive is created, would you support the idea of replacing abortions with adoptions?
Is the right of a woman to her body limited to eviction of the fetus, or does it include the right to kill it?
For that to be a fair question, I think you’d have to fill in a few more variables:
1. Relative safety risks to the woman of getting the baby out of her body to an incubator versus abortion;
2. Cost of the various alternatives.
3. Who is charged with paying those costs.
That’s fair:
1. Only imposed if risk to mother is proven to be equal or less than abortion.
2. Mother would be responsible for paying towards the procedure up to the amount that is standard for an abortion.
3. Adopting family pays remainder.
An adoption agency must come into play to help act as a clearinghouse for step 3. If none are willing to, the abortion would be performed.
Those that oppose abortion would have a chance to “put their money where their mouth is” to make sure that #3 was available.
Assuming 1-3 were met (and I know we’re in the theory point here), would anyone that wants abortion rights oppose this?
Jason,
Imposed? Um, no, that would not be okay in any way, shape, or form. I think that morally it should still be a matter for individual women to decide. If you want to give away your biological tissue, then you should certainly should be allowed to, but neither the state nor other individuals have a right to demand that of you.
And if you did choose to allow someone to adopt your fetus, the adopter really ought to foot the whole bill. It’s not like we currently subtract the cost of abortion from adoption costs. When it’s arranged prior to birth, the adopting family very often pays all costs. I don’t see why that should change.
So I guess you could put me in the “still oppose” column, because I think this is something that ought not be demanded of women, period.
If we’re talking about “your biological tissue”, wouldn’t the father have some say? After all, we’re not forcing the mother to continue to contribute any more of her body, and the fetus only carries 50% of the mother’s DNA.
Obviously, many of the payment stuff gets pretty theoretical, since we can’t do this procedure yet.
My point right now is to try to find out if the pro-choice movement’s main goal is for a woman to control her own body, or her own body AND the other “life form” that is inside.
If your view is common, then it sounds like this is more than just a discussion about a woman’s right to control her own body. It is also about a woman’s exclusive right to choose if the “life form” she and someone else created should be killed.
When men can become pregnant, that question might be relevant.
My point right now is to try to find out if the pro-choice movement’s main goal is for a woman to control her own body, or her own body AND the other “life form†that is inside.
Nothing has changed between the issue as it stands today and the theoretical 12 week adoption. Regardless of whether it’s an abortion or an adoption, it’s still a woman’s body, and you’re still trying to legislate what she does with it.
And “life form”? I’m not convinced that *is* such a thing, at 12 weeks.
(Good grief, if I had any idea anyone would take my smartassed comment seriously, I wouldn’t have made it.)
Sorry, Shelly. Just trying to better understand a different point of view.
However, I’m very surprised that you would object to calling the fetus a life form. I was trying to avoid offending you by calling it a baby.
What do you call an object with a beating heart and a brain? There may be debates about “personhood”, but a fetus is a living object. It just happens to be enclosed by a woman’s body and takes nutrients from it, same as a newly born baby breastfeeds.
Ever strike any of you as odd that a woman can have an abortion with no emotional trauma whatsoever, but would probably become physically ill at inadvertently stepping on a toad on the sidewalk and splatterig it’s guts all over the curb?
Just curious. I realize it’s a touchy issue, and the two sides will never ever agree, that legislation appears futile, I just find the whole “it’s not a life, yet” pretty hard to swallow. Little tiny feet, hands, faces and heartbeats are pretty hard to ignore as a living being scientifically aren’t they?
Tim-I have yet to meet a woman who has gone through an abortion with no emotional trauma.
If you ever meet one, point her out to me.
Rev, How about Shelly in the above posts? I don’t know if she has ever had an abortion, but judging by her comments it sounds as though it wouldn’t bother her.
Tim,
I’ll defend Shelly here. Just because someone supports the ability for abortions to occur does not mean they think they’re for everyone or that they’re an easy choice.
From what I have come to understand, most abortion supporters are most upset at a bunch of old white men telling them what they can do with their body. Since both abortion and carrying the baby to term involve a great deal of participation of the woman, telling her that one option is off the table is controlling her fate around a significant event in her life.
Getting upset about the above doesn’t mean that a woman who feels she has no option but abortion wouldn’t have emotional trauma, even if she doesn’t think that she is killing a living person. Just the situation itself would be traumatic.
However, if the emotional trauma IS because she feels that she is killing a person and that is a common feeling , then we really should ask why abortions are permitted.