Ohio bill to ban abortion

"The law would effectively ban abortions in Ohio and means that women who get them -- and the doctors who perform the procedure -- could be charged with murder and potentially face the death penalty."

So pro-life we’ll kill you. You can’t make this stuff up.

It is CNN with one of their non-truth glorified headlines trying to hold on to their tanking popularity
That is all
And we all clicked the link. Shame on us

a reply to: Bluntone22

Whats the pro-abprtion argument again?

"Oh i just felt like getting mu f@#$ on and to hell with who it creates."

I agree its murder beyond about the first trimester at least.

small government means supporting the government to create laws and interfere with personal choices

anyone who believes they can interfere with someone's personal choice is a pathetic coward

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
small government means supporting the government to create laws and interfere with personal choices

anyone who believes they can interfere with someone's personal choice is a pathetic coward

Like personally choosing who you want to bake cakes for?
Can people interfere with that personal choice?
Or how about personally choosing what to wear for Halloween?

I disagree with ‘banning’ abortions but it seems that one ‘side’ most definitely believe that it’s perfectly acceptable to interfere with people’s personal choices. And I agree with you, that ‘side’ is full to the brim with “pathetic cowards”.

a reply to: Breakthestreak

Like personally choosing who you want to bake cakes for?

No. Because that involves services offered to the public and discrimination, that's quite different.

Or how about personally choosing what to wear for Halloween?

Are there laws about that?

a reply to: Phage

I see your point Phage but I was more replying to his ‘opinion’ on the matter of interference with people’s personal choices. Not the best examples but they still demonstrate my point.

One ‘side’ most definitely agrees with interfering with people’s personal choices. And that ‘side’ most definitely is full of pathetic cowards.

a reply to: Breakthestreak

One ‘side’ most definitely agrees with interfering with people’s person choices.

Yes. That side says that their opinion trumps that of a woman who has a difficult choice to make.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Breakthestreak

One ‘side’ most definitely agrees with interfering with people’s person choices.

Yes. That side says that their opinion trumps that of a woman who has a difficult choice to make.

I should be allowed to tell you what to do with your body, because it's well, um, better for all of us ....

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Bluntone22

Unborn children aren't considered individuals.

They are property, subject to the owner.

So basically, if you support abortion, you support slavery.

in the yugoslaw wars they raped thousends of women to get them pregnant (to weaken the enemy). pretty sure, many of the these victims did abortion. what about these woman? are they supporting slavery too?

this country needs more abortions
not less

woot woot

a reply to: Phage

I make the point because those are things that certain groups hope to obtain. Yet it is rare for the same person to want to ban both or retain both.

It is often stated that the reason to ban guns is because guns kill, ignoring the fact that very few guns will be used to kill, murder, commit suicide, cause death in self defense or even killing animals while hunting as only about 1/3 of owned firearms are for hunting.

Yet abortion is 100% death for the child and even still has some risk to the mother.

When it comes right down to it, of the guns that are used (as most of them are kept idle for most of the time) target shooting seems to be the number one use of firearms. Risk of death by firearm while target shooting is significantly lower than the chance of the mother dying from an administered abortion.

So I ask again, why is it okay to want to ban guns and not okay to want to ban abortions? In both instances the Supreme Court was very clear that they are both individual rights. But judicial rulings can be overturned with changing times.

Myself, I don’t like the idea of abortions but they are legal. And while the claim has always been that taxes do not pay for them. I can tell you that taxes have paid for free rides to and from abortion clinics. And none of those places were Planned Parenthood clinics.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Bluntone22

Unborn children aren't considered individuals.

They are property, subject to the owner.

So basically, if you support abortion, you support slavery.

Ok so I get where your coming from, but for you equate that to slavery is kinda over the top.

I always thought you are for less gubment. Why the change of heart now?

It's gubmint that made murder of unborn babies legal.

I have a few tabs up talking about the history about abortion and have some reading to do.
But before I finish I want to ask ya why you feel that abortion should be illegal?(not that you specifically said that) And do you not feel that is gubment overreach?

Not for religion.

Not for "muh feels".

But because I believe that unborn children are individuals and I believe in individual rights.

That's why I am against abortion.

I would be a hypocrite if I felt otherwise.

But to be an individual you have to be able to act as one. Can an unborn child act as an individual? I personally believe not as would the umbilical cord.

So a freshly-delivered infant can still be 'legally' killed as long as the umbilical cord is still attached and hasn't been cut?

There are no exceptions even in cases of rape, incest, or danger to a woman’s life.

radio.wosu.org...

I actually tried to come up with the text of this bill. Think I found it, but I couldn't find the answer to my question. It just managed to reinforce my extreme distaste to how they write these bloody bills!!!

you can download a pdf version of it here if you want to try your luck with it

www.legislature.ohio.gov...

it does seem to wipe away any exemption for women who's health, or even life might be at risk in the first few lines which makes it highly unconstitutional.

for the person who brought gun rights into this debate...
well, why the heck should you have the right to protect yourself with a gun if a pregnant women can't protect herself from death via miscarriage, infection, of even ectopic pregnancy maybe.
A women should not be required to surrender her basic rights when she becomes pregnant!

a reply to: IAMTAT

no, that wouldn't be allowed now I don't believe.
But, if you have a relative come and stay in your home and find that they are pigs to the utmost degree, just sitting around all day eating your groceries while your kids go hungry....
are you gonna evict them???
Roe v wade gives women the right to abortion till VIABILITY, the point where the baby can survive outside the womb. They have the right to evict the unwanted house guest from their body, but once the fetus is viable, there is another option available that can preserve the life of the fetus... so those late term abortions are really quite rare, quite expensive, and there isn't but a very few doctors who do them so women can expect to travel a long distance for one. Usually, it involves a fetus that will not become viable or pregnancies that are endangering the mother.

This law could very well restrict the way ectopic pregnancies that are caught early are treated forcing women to endure unnecessary surgeries if it stood. I won't though.

originally posted by: Ahabstar


Yet abortion is 100% death for the child

there goes your argument
weak tea

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Anyone here hunt? If so, isn't one of the biggest reasons for hunting overpopulation? It's good for ther deer to have the herd thinned every once in a while. If the population isn't put in check they could destroy the environment around them. I guess the same logic can't be made for humans despite the fact that we are clearly destroying the Earth and its environment.

My father has made the same argument. He says he supports in economically. It's a fair point I suppose, but then why not eugenics? Why not assisted suicide? It's definitely murky waters.

Ummm...it’s quite revealing whenever these conversations arise...in that those that advocate such positions never seem to include themselves in the equation...

All those in favor of reducing population levels and eugenics...should immediately off themselves...

There are many safe and effective means available for them to carry out their belief...besides...I get all their toys when they’re off...successfully ending overpopulation...one advocate at a time...


Problem solving is one of my talents...glad I could help...





YouSir

originally posted by: TinySickTears
this country needs more abortions
not less

woot woot

Ummm...if only you had been one...

Unfortunately...because those breeders decided to keep you viable...we have to suffer with your agonizing opining...

Woot woot...






YouSir

a reply to: YouSir
while margaret sanger was opening planned parenthood clinics and working on developing birth control... neither of which forced anyone to do anything they didn't want to, other great minds were working on plans to forcibly sterilized large groups of the "unwanted, weak, feable minded", native americans and other minorities. There were still poorhouses here and the workhouses in england. it's reallly quite sad how the right paints sanger as being the "eugenicist" while seemingly ignoring what the other great minds were wanting (and in many cases" succeeding to convince our governments into doing.
tell ya what, you look through history and tell me where there's an example of a more humane way to address the problems that occurs when the number of poor reach a point where society is unable or unwilling to ensure that they have the means to survive.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Breakthestreak

One ‘side’ most definitely agrees with interfering with people’s person choices.

Yes. That side says that their opinion trumps that of a woman who has a difficult choice to make.

Ummm...which difficult choice might that have been...?


The one where using common sense to prevent an unwanted pregnancy is trumped by convenience...?

Or choosing to practice methods designed to ensure species propagation...all while not wishing to ensure species propagation...?





YouSir