Ohio passes 'heartbeat' abortion bill

[Halyon]

I'm Pro-Choice.

May have mistaken you then, apologies.

[Hiricine]

Its that simple. Abortion isn't murder and its a constitutional right.

Considering not a single one of the Justices who supported the decision are still on the court and it didn't exist before then, theres a good chance that the second part of that statement could change.

[PassingBy]

There is no imaginary line being drawn. You have no right to tell a woman what she can do with her body.

Its that simple. Abortion isn't murder and its a constitutional right.

You are now the one making imaginary line.

You say abortion is muder unless X,Y,Z. It does not work this way, ether you are saying its murder and are against Abortion or you say it isn't murder and for it.

By ur logic "and this law" the raped girl would have to keep the baby.

Once again you have no right to tell another human being what they can and can't do with there body. Also once again Abortion isn't murder this is a fact and your opinion doesn't change it.

Killing a human being is murder, however if it is killing a convicted mass murdering rapist - it is ok.
That is a compromise that society made with itself in order to punish mass murdering rapists.

So by your logic a woman has a right to abort the baby at any point into the pregnancy?
Since technically the child is inside her body for the whole duration of the pregnancy?
Does she have a right to do it only in a specific medical institution, or can she do it herself at home, for example?
Does she have a right, while we're at it, to inflict her body harm, including harm that may lead to her death?
Does she have a right (or he for this case) to shoot heroin, since it is her/his body?

Or do you still think that there are some exceptions on the "a woman can do what she wants with her body" or are there not?

And if there are some exceptions - why are you surprised that there are also exceptions when abortion is the unfortunate but unavoidable choice?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Right, so lets also make them pay for the child's clothes and food. Anything else we need to add on?

The parents get a salary, after all. What, are you suddenly against pay all together to the point that the company NEEDS to pay for the child's clothes?

As pointed out, parents are waiting til much later in life and having fewer kids because it's such a huge financial burden. It results in lowered birth rates and a need for immigration to maintain population levels. So you WANT more immigration I take it?

Otherwise, countries that mandate maternity or paternity leave are seeing a resurgence in birth rates.

[Dreknar20]

Babies are expensive.
Should only be born if they were planned

[Saucexorzski]

Government is not private industry. It has a responsibility to protect the rights of citizens, even if those rights are locally unpopular when exercised by some or all people.

Abortions and guns for all?

[Hiricine]

Does she have a right, while we're at it, to inflict her body harm, including harm that may lead to her death?

I've never heard this argument in this situation, but if you asked the general public if people had the right to kill or permanently maim themselves you'd hear a resounding "no", and even if you took the people who say yes and asked them what they'd do if a loved one was in front of them trying to cause that type of harm they'd intervene immediately.

[Taneras]

We might in the future.
Companies distribute salaries as a function of the very minimum they can give without the employee running away.
Similarly, we can extract the maximum from companies without scaring them away.

Slippery slopes aside, optimum points don't necessarily require maximizing variables.

I agree, unfortunately considering all the variables at play this does seem like a near impossible problem to solve.

Lets also not assume that all businesses are created equal.

Having a dozen women on paid leave at a company with three hundred or more of employees isn't as much of a burden as, say, a 3 person business who hired a young woman who became pregnant months later. Having 25% of your labor force on paid leave for a considerable amount of time is a lot different than having less than 5% on paid leave for a considerable amount of time. I work for a business where I'm the 3rd employee, so that's the perspective I'm viewing this from.

Obviously that's an extreme case, but there are plenty of businesses with less than 10 employees that would be in a similar situation.

[PassingBy]

I agree, unfortunately considering all the variables at play this does seem like a near impossible problem to solve.

Lets also not assume that all businesses are created equal.

Having a dozen women on paid leave at a company with three hundred or more of employees isn't as much of a burden as, say, a 3 person business who hired a young woman who became pregnant months later. Having 25% of your labor force on paid leave for a considerable amount of time is a lot different than having less than 5% on paid leave for a considerable amount of time. I work for a business where I'm the 3rd employee, so that's the perspective I'm viewing this from.

Obviously that's an extreme case, but there are plenty of businesses with less than 10 employees that would be in a similar situation.

We have a mandatory paid maternity leave here in my country, you have to pay the woman a part of her salary for slightly more than a year.
And also you have to keep the position that the woman occupied for 3 years without a possibility to hire someone to replace her (only a temp).
On top of that firing a pregnant woman is pretty much impossible unless she is stealing from the company (and even if she is - it is a rather hard process).

It results in the face that people are really reluctant to hire women from 25 to 30, since they are quite likely to go on maternity leave.
Do you have children, are you planning to get children soon? - is the most common question asked to women on interviews.

[Taneras]

The parents get a salary, after all. What, are you suddenly against pay all together to the point that the company NEEDS to pay for the child's clothes?

No, just going off the precedent already set.

It's been argued that social benefit outweigh the extra burden placed on businesses and that in and of itself is the reason this policy should be implemented.

Since that's the standard, why not push for more. Imagine the social benefit if those greedy business owners had to pay for not just maternity leave, but the kids food and clothes as well.

As pointed out, parents are waiting til much later in life and having fewer kids because it's such a huge financial burden.

And as I've already asked, are there statistics to back this up? That having paid maternity leave had a measurable effect on birth rates. I'd like to see before and after birth dates and dates when maternity pay was put in place.

Moreover, even if it is true is it the best option?

What if lower taxes for families with young children accomplished the same thing with regards to birth rates? Is that a better option?

[Masark]

Do you have children, are you planning to get children soon? - is the most common question asked to women on interviews.

Up here, even asking that is outright illegal.

[Jtbrig7390]

Killing a human being is murder, however if it is killing a convicted mass murdering rapist - it is ok.
That is a compromise that society made with itself in order to punish mass murdering rapists.

So by your logic a woman has a right to abort the baby at any point into the pregnancy?
Since technically the child is inside her body for the whole duration of the pregnancy?
Does she have a right to do it only in a specific medical institution, or can she do it herself at home, for example?
Does she have a right, while we're at it, to inflict her body harm, including harm that may lead to her death?
Does she have a right (or he for this case) to shoot heroin, since it is her/his body?

Or do you still think that there are some exceptions on the "a woman can do what she wants with her body" or are there not?

And if there are some exceptions - why are you surprised that there are also exceptions when abortion is the unfortunate but unavoidable choice?

No my stance stays the same day 1 or day 65 (just saying a random number). Its her body she can do with it as she see's fit, if she aborts she can take it up with whatever god she believes in.

Also I never said killing a mass murdering rapist is ok. No one has the right to take a life but I do understand some people don't diverse to live ether. Its your opinion that a fetus is a living human being. That is only a opinion and not backed up by scientific fact. If she wants to do it at home that's her call but I highly recommend she didn't.

Let me make this 120% clear....her body her choice.

Would you rather a child be born into a home that can't afford it? or be born into this world with tons of health issues and have no real shot at life?

[Halyon]

Killing a human being is murder, however if it is killing a convicted mass murdering rapist - it is ok.
That is a compromise that society made with itself in order to punish mass murdering rapists.

So by your logic a woman has a right to abort the baby at any point into the pregnancy?
Since technically the child is inside her body for the whole duration of the pregnancy?
Does she have a right to do it only in a specific medical institution, or can she do it herself at home, for example?
Does she have a right, while we're at it, to inflict her body harm, including harm that may lead to her death?
Does she have a right (or he for this case) to shoot heroin, since it is her/his body?

Or do you still think that there are some exceptions on the "a woman can do what she wants with her body" or are there not?

And if there are some exceptions - why are you surprised that there are also exceptions when abortion is the unfortunate but unavoidable choice?

Abortion is less risk of complications than carrying to term. Soooo... It also applies, to eating specific things, driving cars, walking near traffic, certain jobs etc...

[Taneras]

We have a mandatory paid maternity leave here in my country, you have to pay the woman a part of her salary for slightly more than a year.
And also you have to keep the position that the woman occupied for 3 years without a possibility to hire someone to replace her (only a temp).
On top of that firing a pregnant woman is pretty much impossible unless she is stealing from the company (and even if she is - it is a rather hard process).

It results in the face that people are really reluctant to hire women from 25 to 30, since they are quite likely to go on maternity leave.
Do you have children, are you planning to get children soon? - is the most common question asked to women on interviews.

This was my critique originally.

I do think we've gotten off topic, though. My original point was that its intellectually dishonest to pretend that Republicans just hate women and that's why their against abortions and, as someone brought up as a counter point, maternity pay.

I disagree on Republicans on most social policies, but I don't automatically assume ill intent like some here have. When you realize and acknowledge that the person across the table from you also wants to try and do good they just have a different way going about it it makes compromise much easier and helps prevent some of these massive divides we have here in America today.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they're evil.

[Azadina]

Up here, even asking that is outright illegal.

Same as here, exactly to stop outright discrimination.

[Jtbrig7390]

This was my critique originally.

I do think we've gotten off topic, though. My original point was that its intellectually dishonest to pretend that Republicans just hate women and that's why their against abortions and, as someone brought up as a counter point, maternity pay.

I feel most Republicans feel the way they do about abortion because of religion. Religion doesn't belong in government and personally I say fuck Religion. Someones Religion shouldn't be the deciding factor on someone else's life.

You want to believe in things that's fine go for it. Don't force your beliefs on others.

[Taneras]

I feel most Republicans feel the way they do about abortion because of religion. Religion doesn't belong in government and personally I say fuck Religion. Someones Religion something be the deciding factor on someone else's life.

You want to believe in things that's fine go for it. Don't force your beliefs on others.

No doubt religion plays a large role in abortion stances, and I agree with there shouldn't be a place for religion in government. I disagree with religious people (I'm an atheist) and I disagree with the pro-life movement (I'm pro choice). I do think its ridiculous to believe that a human being is created at conception but I'm not going to assume ill intent. And arguing against ill intent when there is none is not only pointless but counterproductive. Have discussions why the stance that life begins at conception is a very difficult position to maintain, don't just make accusations that they just hate women. I'm not saying this directly to you, just trying to make my stance clear to all who are reading.

As far as my stance on abortion goes, I'm pro-choice obviously. Drawing a line is tough, and I'm not as informed as I'd like to be on this issue but my own stance as to where the line should be drawn would be based off of neurological development. Who cares about a heartbeat? That's a very arbitrary and emotional position to take. It's largely ignorant as well, as its going off of the old assumption that the heart had some sort of control over our emotions. No, it just pumps blood. I'm sure many of the people in support of this measure also eat meat? Meat from animals with beating hearts. Clearly a beating heart isn't what protects life. It's clear why we draw the line at humans, and give dogs more value than say, ants. It's intelligence/being self aware/experiencing the wide range of emotions that we feel. In short, our brains.

I'm not sure where I'd draw the line, I think the 20 week limit placed right now is a decent spot. But where ever the line is drawn, the only criteria that should matter, in my opinion, should be neurological development.

[TheWorkingTitle]

Six weeks.

Republicans have made it clear that they don't give a fuck about women.

Their presidential candidate on tape in his 50s bragging about sexually assaulting young girls and women, bragging about how he would fuck his own daughter if he could, forced to settle out of court after beating and raping his first wife. Kasich gleefully talking about how he would force young girls to carry the products of incest and rape to term. Now forcing any girl or woman who needs a simple medical procedure done into back alleys and dark web pharmacies.

This is the shit I was talking about when I said the GOP public platform would cause mass harm to US citizens. Sadly, it's also just the beginning.

Murder is not a "simple medical procedure". Ohio is the first of many to come, get used to it.

[Wells]

Murder is not a "simple medical procedure". Ohio is the first of many to come, get used to it.

Roe V Wade stands, so no.

[Orbitus]

Murder is not a "simple medical procedure". Ohio is the first of many to come, get used to it.

Sorry but there have been many bills just like this one, and all of them have been struck down. This isn't the first, certainly won't be the last, and we certainly aren't going to get used to it.