• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kansas set to enact life-starts-"at fertilization" abortion law

Pilot

Pilot

Banned
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
522
Reaction score
270
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
(Reuters) - Kansas is set to enact one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the nation which defines life as beginning "at fertilization" and imposes a host of new regulations.

The Kansas House of Representatives passed the bill 90-30 on Friday night, a few hours after the Senate backed it on a 28-10 vote. Strongly anti-abortion Republican Governor Sam Brownback is expected to sign it into law. Republicans hold strong majorities in both houses.

In addition to the provision specifying when life begins, the bill prevents employees of abortion clinics from providing sex education in schools, bans tax credits for abortion services and requires clinics to give details to women about fetal development and abortion health risks. It also bans abortions based solely on the gender of the fetus.

The Kansas bill comes on the heels of anti-abortion measures passing in states across the country, including one in Arkansas banning abortions in the 12th week of pregnancy and a law in North Dakota that sets the limit at six weeks.

The Kansas language stating that life begins "at fertilization" is modeled on a 1989 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, said Kathy Ostrowski, legislative director of Kansans for Life, anti-abortion group.

Ostrowski said the language protects the rights of the unborn in probate and other legal matters.

If the bill is signed into law, Kansas will become the eighth state declaring that life begins at fertilization, said Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager of the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, which researches abortion-related laws nationwide.

While it would not supplant Kansas law banning most abortions after the 22nd week of pregnancy, it does set the state up to more swiftly outlaw all abortions should the U.S. Supreme Court revisit its 1973 ruling making abortion legal, Nash said.

Link to Story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/06/us-usa-kansas-abortion-idUSBRE93501220130406
Click to expand...

Are the new laws really that restrictive? It's not changing the timeline for when abortions can be performed, only setting a new definition of when life begins and adding a few seemingly minor restrictions. Is this just being hyped up?
 
Pilot said:
Are the new laws really that restrictive? It's not changing the timeline for when abortions can be performed, only setting a new definition of when life begins and adding a few seemingly minor restrictions. Is this just being hyped up?
Click to expand...

It doesn't really seem like much has changed. What I'm confused about is if life begins at fertilization then how come abortions are still allowed? If it's a human at say 1 week, then wouldn't an abortion terminate the life of a human? If that's not the case, then why even change when it's considered a human life?
 
Dubliner said:
It doesn't really seem like much has changed. What I'm confused about is if life begins at fertilization then how come abortions are still allowed? If it's a human at say 1 week, then wouldn't an abortion terminate the life of a human? If that's not the case, then why even change when it's considered a human life?
Click to expand...

That's a good question. I'll try to find the actual text of the bill. It sounds like abortion at any stage would effectively become murder, but that goes against what is being reported.
 
Pilot said:
That's a good question. I'll try to find the actual text of the bill. It sounds like abortion at any stage would effectively become murder, but that goes against what is being reported.
Click to expand...

Awesome, thank you. That's exactly what I was thinking. I don't understand what the point of that part of the bill is if it doesn't change anything either. According to the bill, then is it legalizing murder for "children" up to 22 weeks old?
 
Link to the amended bill: http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2253_02_0000.pdf

Link to summary: http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/supp_note_hb2253_02_0000.pdf

I don't have time to read the 72 page bill, but this is what the summary says about the new definition:

2253, as amended, would revise the general and
late-term abortion statutes, the Woman’s-Right-To-Know Act,
and the state tax statutes. In addition, the bill would add a
new statutory provision that would declare the life of each
human being begins at fertilization, with all state laws to be
interpreted and construed to protect the rights, privileges, and
immunities of the unborn child, only subject to the U.S.
Constitution and the judicial decisions and interpretations by
the U.S. Supreme Court.

The bill would provide that nothing in the new provisions
shall apply to an abortion that is necessary to preserve the
life of the pregnant woman.
Click to expand...
 
So a miscarriage is manslaughter now?
 
Deuce said:
So a miscarriage is manslaughter now?
Click to expand...

Sure looks like it.

The bit at the end about SCOTUS rulings might prevent that, but all in all, this seems like a legal disaster. If you are going to say life begins at conception, how can you allow what would be murder under the new definition?
 
Pilot said:
That's a good question. I'll try to find the actual text of the bill. It sounds like abortion at any stage would effectively become murder, but that goes against what is being reported.
Click to expand...

Murder is the illegal killing of another person.

If you say life begins at fertilization, it still doesn't automatically make the killing of that life "murder" if such a killing is legal under teh law.
 
Zyphlin said:
Murder is the illegal killing of another person.

If you say life begins at fertilization, it still doesn't automatically make the killing of that life "murder" if such a killing is legal under teh law.
Click to expand...

Good point. I could see an argument for leaving exceptions for the mother's safety, but other than that how can they justify keeping the 22 week limit? It seems like it will cause a lot of legal problems the way it currently is.
 
Pilot said:
Good point. I could see an argument for leaving exceptions for the mother's safety, but other than that how can they justify keeping the 22 week limit? It seems like it will cause a lot of legal problems the way it currently is.
Click to expand...

Because this is an issue largely based on strong political views, not necessarily individuals views on the law. This law being in place isn't likely to change many peoples views. If they felt that there was no justification for the 22 week mark before, they probably still feel that way. If they felt there was justification for, they probably still think there is SOME justification for it. Because it's less about the laws and what makes sense by them for most people...it's about whether they think abortion should be legal and nothing else but that.

My guess is if the notion is correct that this won't make abortion illegal prior to 22 weeks in the state, then I could see that part basically just be something being done with the notion of being able to apply pressure in the state, or through things funded by state funding, that a woman having an abortion is "killing" the "child".
 
First of all, this is ****ing stupid because the goddamned gametes are alive before fertilization occurs. I know Kansas doesn't have a reputation for intellectual prowess, but this is basic stuff anybody with a GED should know.

Second, this is an obvious attempt to inch towards violating the 14 amendment. Stating life begins at fertilization serves no legitimate purpose.

Third, as Deuce noted, this turns miscarriage (which naturally occurs in like 75% of all fertilizations) into manslaughter. Birth control pills prevent implantation, not fertilization, so they would have to be outlawed. In vitro fertilization and IUDs too. This poorly thought out piece of **** would require the government to shove cameras in every sexually active woman's vagina to bust them for a crime when their bodies naturally dissolve unviable zygotes.

In summary, Kansas is ****ing stupid and an embarrassment to rest of the country.
 
A <SNIP> From an interesting article which compares the number of zygotes lost with birth control V without Birth control;

With Birth Control:

■Sample size: 100 fertile women
■0.15 dead zygotes per month
■2 dead zygotes by the end of the year


Without Birth Control:

■Sample size: 100 fertile women
■Each month 16% become pregnant and 16% have dead zygotes
■85 dead zygotes by the end of the year


Just in case starting the sample with 100 women who are not pregnant somehow skewed the numbers, let’s simply consider two individual women over their lifetimes. Let’s say that each has 25 fertile years. One is on the pill the entire time. If we add up her 2% chance per year of having a zygote flushed out, we end up with a 50% chance over her lifetime.

The other woman does not use birth control. For every menstrual cycle, there is a 16% chance that she will have a zygote flushed out. This means that out of six periods, on average she will have one zygote flushed out – one fertilized egg that will fail to implant in her uterus.
While without birth control she will likely spend much of her time pregnant, she will still have periods in between pregnancies.

And since it’s just as likely that a zygote will fail to implant in between two pregnancies as it is that it will successfully implant, thus starting another pregnancy, she will probably end up with just as many dead zygotes as she ends up with pregnancies.

Thus a woman on the pill for her entire fertile period has a one in two chance of her body “killing” a zygote by flushing it out, but the body of a woman not on birth control will flush out and thus “kill” numerous zygotes over the course of her life. ...

The actual numbers indicate that a woman on the pill for her entire life flushes out something like 95% fewer zygotes than a woman not using birth control.
Click to expand...

Zygotes Lost With Birth Control v. Without Birth Control
 
ChunkySalsa said:
Second, this is an obvious attempt to inch towards violating the 14 amendment. Stating life begins at fertilization serves no legitimate purpose.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. It's stating the biological fact that a new human life is created at the moment of conception. That is a fact.

The argument is whether this new human life is a "person" and/or deserves "personhood."

There is always legitimate purpose in stating facts.
 
nota bene said:
Yes, it does. It's stating the biological fact that a new human life is created at the moment of conception. That is a fact.

The argument is whether this new human life is a "person" and/or deserves "personhood."

There is always legitimate purpose in stating facts.
Click to expand...

Life exists before conception and stating that it begins at conception is inaccurate. Lacking accuracy, this "fact" is not relevant to the "when-personhood" debate. Being both inaccurate and irrelevant, the only purpose it serves it to appeal to emotion and muddy the debate. Casting it in legislature is an attempt to elevate this "fact," to give it unearned legitimacy without subjecting it to scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
ChunkySalsa said:
Life exists before conception and stating that it begins at conception is inaccurate. Lacking accuracy, this "fact" is not relevant to the "when-personhood" debate. Being both inaccurate and irrelevant, the only purpose it serves it to appeal to emotion and muddy the debate. Casting it in legislature is an attempt to elevate this "fact," to give it undeserved legitimacy, without subjecting it to the scrutiny it deserves.
Click to expand...

You may continue to delude yourself, but I did state a biological fact. The embryologists whose textbooks are used at the top-ten med schools do state this.
 
nota bene said:
You may continue to delude yourself, but I did state a biological fact. The embryologists whose textbooks are used at the top-ten med schools do state this.
Click to expand...

Your biological fact is inane and irrelevant to the discussion about when to legally ascribe personhood to a developing fetus. This tactic, appealing to emotion, has just as much validity as an ad hominen trying to discredit Republicans by sneaking "Boehner has a 2 inch penis" into the law.
 
ChunkySalsa said:
First of all, this is ****ing stupid because the goddamned gametes are alive before fertilization occurs. I know Kansas doesn't have a reputation for intellectual prowess, but this is basic stuff anybody with a GED should know.
Click to expand...

Gametes are not "alive", as they have no way to reproduce themselves.

I guess you should get a refund for your GED.
 
ChunkySalsa said:
Your biological fact is inane and irrelevant to the discussion about when to legally ascribe personhood to a developing fetus. This tactic, appealing to emotion, has just as much validity as an ad hominen trying to discredit Republicans by sneaking "Boehner has a 2 inch penis" into the law.
Click to expand...

The fact that the fetus is human and alive from the moment of conception is not inane nor irrelevant to this discussion. You claimed that this isn't so when it is a biological fact. And I did specifically state that the issue is personhood. Read more carefully please.
 
ChunkySalsa said:
First of all, this is ****ing stupid because the goddamned gametes are alive before fertilization occurs. I know Kansas doesn't have a reputation for intellectual prowess, but this is basic stuff anybody with a GED should know.

Second, this is an obvious attempt to inch towards violating the 14 amendment. Stating life begins at fertilization serves no legitimate purpose.

Third, as Deuce noted, this turns miscarriage (which naturally occurs in like 75% of all fertilizations) into manslaughter. Birth control pills prevent implantation, not fertilization, so they would have to be outlawed. In vitro fertilization and IUDs too. This poorly thought out piece of **** would require the government to shove cameras in every sexually active woman's vagina to bust them for a crime when their bodies naturally dissolve unviable zygotes.

In summary, Kansas is ****ing stupid and an embarrassment to rest of the country.
Click to expand...



Fist, it really isn't stupid at all. It does however require a desire for Truth (honesty) to come to a reasonable rational conclusion.
Prior to fertilization you have two individual cells that will not become a human being until they come together. Once they do come together, short of a miscarriage or abortion, you have a genetically unique human being forming. A human in process you might say.
When you have a unique human being in process, when is it ok to kill it? I would argue never. We attempt to become gods if we decide to kill a human being.

Second, inching towards the truth is never a bad idea. Stating life begins at fertilization does not serve your agenda, but it does serve Truth. Not a bad thing at all.

Third, miscarriage would not be considered manslaughter unless the mother were to induce it through bad choices. Also, your statistic for miscarriage appears to be hyper-inflated for some reason:
"Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage."
Miscarriage - American Pregnancy Association

Lastly, the ad-hominem attack. The standard recourse for those who do not believe in Truth or honesty. A tactic usually employed by the Progressive, and too often the liberal.
 
Cable said:
...

Also, your statistic for miscarriage appears to be hyper-inflated for some reason:
"Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage."
Miscarriage - American Pregnancy Association

...
Click to expand...

You are correct that up to 25 Percent of known pregnancies end in misscarrige. But Chunky Salsa was also correct when he said that
about 75 pregnancies naturally end in miscarriage.
About two thirds of fertilized eggs ( zygotes) pass out of the body without implanting or self abort the first week after implanting ...before the woman even knows she is pregnant.
 
Pilot said:
Good point. I could see an argument for leaving exceptions for the mother's safety, but other than that how can they justify keeping the 22 week limit? It seems like it will cause a lot of legal problems the way it currently is.
Click to expand...

Clearly this legislation is intended to criminalize all abortions except those saving the life of the pregnant woman. No exceptions are noted for rape or incest.

From your link:
2253, as amended, would revise the general and
late-term abortion statutes, the Woman’s-Right-To-Know Act,
and the state tax statutes. In addition, the bill would add a
new statutory provision that would declare the life of each
human being begins at fertilization, with all state laws to be
interpreted and construed to protect the rights, privileges, and
immunities of the unborn child, only subject to the U.S.
Constitution and the judicial decisions and interpretations by
the U.S. Supreme Court.

The bill would provide that nothing in the new provisions
shall apply to an abortion that is necessary to preserve the
life of the pregnant woman.
 
minnie616 said:
You are correct that up to 25 Percent of known pregnancies end in misscarrige. But Chunky Salsa was also correct when he said that
about 75 pregnancies naturally end in miscarriage.
About two thirds of fertilized eggs ( zygotes) pass out of the body without implanting or self abort the first week after implanting ...before the woman even knows she is pregnant.
Click to expand...

Thanks Minnie. I appreciate the info, although if you have a source that would be great to understand.
I don't like to provide incorrect information. It appeared to me that he was just exaggerating in an attempt to bolster his case, which was already wobbling on weak or nonexistent factual legs.
 
Cable said:
Thanks Minnie. I appreciate the info, although if you have a source that would be great to understand.
I don't like to provide incorrect information. It appeared to me that he was just exaggerating in an attempt to bolster his case, which was already wobbling on weak or nonexistent factual legs.
Click to expand...

Here is one source:

From an article called The Good Egg which was published by DISCOVER Magazine :
Although the statistics on the failure rate of human fertilization are not entirely robust, given the biological and ethical delicacy of conducting research in this area, the numbers consistently suggest that, at minimum, two-thirds of all human eggs fertilized during normal conception either fail to implant at the end of the first week or later spontaneously abort.

Some experts suggest that the numbers are even more dramatic. John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, told the President’s Council on Bioethics last September that preimplantation embryo loss is “enormous.

Estimates range all the way from 60 percent to 80 percent of the very earliest stages, cleavage stages, for example, that are lost.” Moreover, an estimated 31 percent of implanted embryos later miscarry, according to a 1988 New England Journal of Medicine study headed by Allen Wilcox of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
Click to expand...


The Good Egg | DiscoverMagazine.com


Here is another source:



Which Fertilized Eggs Will Become Healthy Human Fetuses? Researchers Predict With 93% Accuracy
ScienceDaily (Oct. 3, 2010) — Two-thirds of all human embryos fail to develop successfully. Now, in a new study, researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine have shown that they can predict with 93 percent certainty which fertilized eggs will make it to a critical developmental milestone and which will stall and die. The findings are important to the understanding of the fundamentals of human development at the earliest stages, which have largely remained a mystery despite the attention given to human embryonic stem cell research.
Click to expand...

Which fertilized eggs will become healthy human fetuses? Researchers predict with 93% accuracy
 
1. There are no effective methods of determining when an embryo is fertilized. Affording protections to an embryo that a woman cannot possibly know about creates an impossible burden on her.

2. Requiring that a woman be inundated with material to convince her not to abort as a requirement to do so is coercive and cruel.

3. Preventing qualified professionals from educating kids is unforgivable.

4. From Roe v Wade, the constitution protects the right to obtain an abortion up to viability, which is between 24 and 28 weeks. State laws cannot infringe on that right.

5. No one supports sex selective abortions.

6. A doctor already must inform a woman of potential health risks in order to obtain informed consent. The information must be accurate and not coercive.

The only changes this bill makes are either immoral, unconstitutional, or redundant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom