It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ohio Senate passes Heartbeat Bill that could effectively ban abortions

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

I agree with your perspective. Contraceptives (condoms/the pill) have always worked for me and my partners (fingers crossed), but I will not deny the right of another human to make a decision regarding their own bodies. Restricting voluntary abortion (outside of medical necessity for the mother) to roughly the first six months is completely reasonable. Rational choices can be made, it can be talked about and debated in that time frame. The individual has a chance to make the decision that is right for them.

Limiting abortion to a month and a half from conception limits an individual's ability to make the correct decision for themselves. Really, in the best case it would be MAYBE 2 weeks for a female to even have a reasonable inkling that she was pregnant unless she was actively testing herself, which means she probably wanted to get pregnant in the first place.

Restricting abortion through law only creates more problems. This is my stance for most things unsavory - create a vacuum for criminals and they will flock to it. As a society, we need to agree on the idea that pregnancy is a preventable condition in the vast majority of cases and work towards preventing the necessity of abortion, but I won't pretend that there is an ideal world where we all get what we want from the decisions we make.

There are no black and white answers - that's why living in a free society that values the "grey area" is tough. We will never have a society that is homogeneous enough to completely eradicate the necessity of voluntary abortion. Necessary evils like abortion exist because modern society at large would suffer from unwanted pregnancies. Orphanages in the U.S. are a thing of the past and belong in the past as are the unwanted pregnancies that resulted in the necessity for buildings housing unwanted children.

People have a choice now, no matter what the circumstance. It is an important step as a specie to conquer nature - we have done this time and time again. Why should we treat this fact of nature different from the others we have completely conquered?
edit on 7-12-2016 by OrdoAdChao because: too many 'e's




posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

A heartbeat is often detectable at 6 weeks. Unless a woman is TRYING to get pregnant, the average woman wouldn't know at 6 weeks.

Many forms of birth control cause a woman to have quarterly periods, have the choice to skip a period or simply do not have them. In the case of most pills and IUDs.

CNN

The worst part is that this was not the original bill. The original bill was

House Bill 493, that sought to streamline the process in which medical professionals report child abuse situations.
That was a very reasonable bill and then Republicans decided to add on this unrelated heartbeat nonsense.

Now, there will be a long legal battle, the bill will never pass as is and the original part of the bill will be greatly delayed in passing, if it ever gets presented again in it's original state.

Facepalm.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao
a reply to: Edumakated

I agree with your perspective. Contraceptives (condoms/the pill) have always worked for me and my partners (fingers crossed), but I will not deny the right of another human to make a decision regarding their own bodies. Restricting voluntary abortion (outside of medical necessity for the mother) to roughly the first six months is completely reasonable. Rational choices can be made, it can be talked about and debated in that time frame. The individual has a chance to make the decision that is right for them.

Limiting abortion to a month and a half from conception limits an individual's ability to make the correct decision for themselves. Really, in the best case it would be MAYBE 2 weeks for a female to even have a reasonable inkling that she was pregnant unless she was actively testing herself, which means she probably wanted to get pregnant in the first place.

Restricting abortion through law only creates more problems. This is my stance for most things unsavory - create a vacuum for criminals and they will flock to it. As a society, we need to agree on the idea that pregnancy is a preventable condition in the vast majority of cases and work towards preventing the necessity of abortion, but I won't pretend that there is an ideal world where we all get what we want from the decisions we make.

There are no black and white answers - that's why living in a free society that values the "grey area" is tough. We will never have a society that is homogeneous enough to completely eradicate the necessity of voluntary abortion. Necessary evils like abortion exist because modern society at large would suffer from unwanted pregnancies. Orphanages in the U.S. are a thing of the past and belong in the past as are the unwanted pregnancies that resulted in the necessity for buildings housing unwanted children.

People have a choice now, no matter what the circumstance. It is an important step as a specie to conquer nature - we have done this time and time again. Why should we treat this fact of nature different from the others we have completely conquered?


Absolutely. And it is different for everyone, I was using 2 forms of birth control when I became pregnant with my child,
it was like SURPRISE! Had I been younger and unmarried, I may not have gone through with the pregnancy. It was still my choice at the time. I had no idea until I started having morning sickness, I was about 8 or 9 weeks in. I had not noticed missing a period, I had a very busy job at the time.

It is crazy that (mainly) old men are so interested in the goings on in my body, I find it a little perverted, frankly.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
I'm so sick of this.

It's simply NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.


If you can support killing an innocent child with a heartbeat, I assume you can support killing a rapist or a murderous adult with a heartbeat?



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: dawnstar


I understand that sometimes things happen and abortion is the best option. No denying that.
But most abortions are not rape related or the mother was not in danger.

To me there is a point that the fetus is entitled to the same "life", liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Personally that's around the six month range.
But there again, I think we need to do more to help these women and make adoption of their children much easier.


In most states it is in the 5th or 6th month range. I see people yelling about partial birth abortion, but something like 6 were performed in 8 years to save the live of the mother.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Annee
I'm so sick of this.

It's simply NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.


If you can support killing an innocent child with a heartbeat, I assume you can support killing a rapist or a murderous adult with a heartbeat?


Stupid hyperbole Blah! Blah!

Let me guess - - - its God's creation. But, I don't believe in God.

NONE of YOUR Business.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: dawnstar
I tend to agree. I think this is just some hot air to win them a couple of pro-life votes. They know that this will be struck down but it will make some people happy for them to try.

a reply to: MOMof3
So Ohio goes about this fancy game and it's Trump's fault? Of course it is Jeez




Actually, in regard to Trump:


In an interview with "60 Minutes" last month, Trump said opposition to abortion would be a criteria for nominating justices."The judges will be pro-life," he said



One, a new President, new Supreme Court justice appointees change the dynamic, and that there was a consensus in our caucus to move forward," Ohio Senate President Keith Faber, a Republican from Celina, told reporters after the final vote.


So, there is a connection. They feel emboldened by him.

CNN



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

It is crazy that (mainly) old men are so interested in the goings on in my body, I find it a little perverted, frankly.


YES!!!!!!!!!! It is.

Being my age, and having lived before abortion was Legally available - - - it really pisses me off.

It just isn't anyone else's business.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: reldra

It is crazy that (mainly) old men are so interested in the goings on in my body, I find it a little perverted, frankly.


YES!!!!!!!!!! It is.

Being my age, and having lived before abortion was Legally available - - - it really pisses me off.

It just isn't anyone else's business.



Although I don't really care if women can or can't get an abortion, the idea that it is nobody else's business is your opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion but so is everbody else.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: reldra

It is crazy that (mainly) old men are so interested in the goings on in my body, I find it a little perverted, frankly.


YES!!!!!!!!!! It is.

Being my age, and having lived before abortion was Legally available - - - it really pisses me off.

It just isn't anyone else's business.



Although I don't really care if women can or can't get an abortion, the idea that it is nobody else's business is your opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion but so is everbody else.


NO, it is MY business.

Not anyone else's.

I do not care what anyone else's opinion is on ME choosing abortion. Period!

It is NOT their business. Opinion or not.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Nobody cares what you do to your body.
They care about the baby.
Where exactly does the babies opinion come into play with you?

I assume for you it's after delivery.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Annee

Nobody cares what you do to your body.
They care about the baby.
Where exactly does the babies opinion come into play with you?

I assume for you it's after delivery.


MY business.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee


Clear as mud.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Annee


Clear as mud.


Absolutely!

Let me know when - - - EVERY LIVING CHILD - - - is loved, cared for, fed, sheltered, educated, etc.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Answers like that are the reason this issue will never be resolved.
Never a give and take discussion.

I'm out, later annee



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Annee

Answers like that are the reason this issue will never be resolved.
Never a give and take discussion.

I'm out, later annee


There is NO give & take on decisions I make about my body and reproductive choices.

NONE - - That's a FACT.

I'll take the beer though. Thanks.
edit on 7-12-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22




Never a give and take discussion.


What give and take? Do you want women to "give" up their rights to choose? Do you want to "take" women's rights to to choose away from them? What exactly is the "give and take" you're hoping to see?


edit on 7-12-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

where is the give or take in this law, it doesn't even have an exemption to protect the mother's health? heck, we should feel blessed that there is one there to protect the women's life I guess considering how many laws have gone through that have neglected that one!



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: marg6043

That's the thing, though--it doesn't ban it, although it does tend to come relatively close, limiting it to only being possible within the first five weeks for an elective abortion, or only medically necessary ones thereafter.

I'm trying really hard not to interject my opinion on abortion in this thread, so I'll end my comment there. I'll save the other threads for my opinions on the matter.

Thanks for staying on topic



ETA: At least this law does absolve the woman from legal punishment if a doctor were to perform an abortion outside of the legal measures contained within the law, so at least that's a good approach, IMO.


It effectively bans it. What woman knows she's pregnant in 5 weeks? That's not even enough time to realize she was even late once. The writers of the bill know this.

5 weeks?

gtfo.

This will not go into effect, and if it does -- shaking my head.
edit on 7-12-2016 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: windword

I never claimed that it would overturn the SCOTUS ruling in Roe-V-Wade, all I ever said was that, with the changing of the guard of justices being an imminent inevitability, the opinion on the matter may change with it.



And that's exactly the problem. The only legislation on opinions that should be valid is that you cannot draft laws that ban options because of someones opinion.

There is no fact in pro-life opinion. There is of course, factual evidence against it. If you force poor people to carry to term, all you do is make more poor people. Poor people equate directly to the crime rate, so forcing unwanted babies on people does and will raise the crime rates as well as produce higher costs through entitlement programs.

Literally no good is done "saving" accident babies. I care more about those who are here and breathing, talking and conversing, than I do a "would be" child that's just going to make it more difficult for those of us who are here and breathing.

What happens when a mother can't afford to bring a baby to term? She offers it up for adoption? Sure, that may be an option -- but what of all the kids in halfway homes who never got adopted? There are greater implications to forcing the pro-life opinion, while the pro-choice opinion is factually less destructive.

We will never know when "life" truly starts, IMO it doesn't start until you are capable of forming and retaining memories. If you don't know you're alive, you're not self aware -- if you're not self aware, you're not a person yet. Until this fact changes, nobody should be capable of forcing a prolife opinion through law.

The second we have some godly answer to this question is the second I'll support a bill that changes things as long as it's reflective of that new information. It is not the governments place to legislate opinion. They are there to legislate fact to create a better society. Legislating in favor of pro-life creates a worse society and is unfounded by evidence. This is a moral opinion legislated.
edit on 7-12-2016 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join