IA Gov claims to be pro-life

There is a significant lag time on Federal litigation. District Court litigation will likely not be complete until towards the end of 2018 or early 2019. Court of Appeals litigation will likely not be complete until late spring or early summer of 2019. Meaning that this case would not even get to the Supreme Court until late summer of 2019, for consideration in the October 2019 term. Who knows what the Supreme Court might look like by then.

Iowa is hoping that Trump gets a new Justice in place of Kennedy and/or perhaps RBG.

I didnt know…

Killing someone else isn’t unconstitutional. Ookay then.

Abortionistz’ Rationale:
-they arn’t human.
-they can’t vote
-they are considered another person’s property.
-losing control of that property would supposedly cause economic hardship to the “owner”.

When have we heard that argument before?

1 Like

Sounds like a mindset conductive to child abuse to me. I think we’ve heard the argument in the 1800s. Something about slavery? :thinking:

Not someone a fetus without constitutional rights.

Why don’t we give the death penalty for woman who choose to get an abortion.


Potential human being, all fertilized eggs and fetus don’t become human beings.

When does a person begin to have American constitutional rights.

In the womb when fertilized?

When it’s heart begins to beat?

When it becomes viable outside the womb?

When it is inside the mother, previablity?


Vaguely reminiscent for sure.

1 Like


10 char

Fair enough. I look at those exceptions as a good check to see if someone truly believes abortion is murder. Do they truly believe a fetus has the same value as a 6 month baby? Let’s assume the current legislation holds. Would you be for going back and eliminating those exceptions?

You articulate your position very well here, and I respect the time you took to clearly articulate it.

But given that there are others on teh opposite side of the spectrum from you on this issue who just as thoughtfully examine the issue and conclude the opposite, wouldn’t you allow that the morality of abortion is not at all clear, and therefore should be left to each individual to decide?

I know that right here and right now, you will say ‘no’, because this issue is very important to you and my one paragraph challenge on a political message board really isn’t substantial enough to change your foundational thinking and feeling on this…but I would hope you would think about that off line some time.

No one is asking you to change your moral views of abortion, and perhaps you should not ask others to as well.

Can you cite a single instance in which I have said abortion is “murder”?

Every abortion kills at least one living human being, that doesn’t make it murder.

At the complete of the 2nd Division you have a new human being.

So if you take the morning after pill it is homocide.



so you opinion is that it is homicide after the second division

and people wonder why we call you anti-choicers kooks.


Not the exception to save the life of the mother. In fact, that exception is superfluous as self-defense is just as much a pro-life position as not killing someone. If I have to make a choice between my life and yours – if one of us has to die – then there is nothing wrong with me choosing either option. It’s better than us both ending up dead.

The fact that a pre-born child is part of the equation doesn’t change the principle.

The other exceptions (rape and incest) are necessary today only because they are convenient stumbling blocks thrown up by abortion advocates. Deliberately adding a death to a tragic situation doesn’t mitigate the tragedy. But our culture is not ready to face that fact today. Not yet.

Always a “but”. I don’t believe you respect anything about my post. Not you.

It’s not THOUGHTFUL at all. It’s relativism. It’s self-justification. It’s warped.

Not at all. The MORALITY is absolutely clear. The deliberate “confusions” people like you have are fabricated.

Aren’t you glad we didn’t take that approach with slavery? I can say for sure that I am.

Some people require a specific law to tell them right from wrong. You seem to be one of them.

If the morality was clear, there wouldn’t be such varied opinions on it.

“Murder” is one of those legal constructs that allow people to split hairs and justify their killing. Ditto “person”.

A killing can be declared not to be MURDER in the court of law yet still be wrong.

A human being can be declared not to be a “person” somehow, but is still a human being. Likewise there are people who advocate for “personhood” on non-humans.

That is the foundational principle why some people and organizations fought tooth and nail not to be bound by the Obamacare mandate that all birth control methods had to be covered.