Ohio passes 'heartbeat' abortion bill

[A dot Ham]

Did a bunch of posts get deleted or something?

Yes. Mods hard at work.

[Espe]

Yes. Mods hard at work.

There's that right-wing victim complex, right on schedule.

Because when you make an ass of yourself by gleefully advocating for mass harm and get called out for your bullshit there's only one thing left to do - post a conspiracy theory rant about forum moderation

[Azadina]

Wait what? What does that have to do with anything?
DON'T CLICK IF YOU ARE DISTURBED BY INTENSE MEDICAL IMAGES
*snippy snip*
DON'T CLICK IF YOU ARE DISTURBED BY INTENSE MEDICAL IMAGES

Democrat or republican... most people find these things pretty disturbing. THAT is why these laws get past.

You make it sound like everyone that is intellectual is democrat and anyone remotely religious is both a fanatic and republican. You know that isn't true.

You can have morals and values that cause you to dictate your decisions and the laws you vote on that have NOTHING to do with religion. That is a very easy and stereotpyical argument.

You link me video of chicken embryo, and ask me what does it have to do with anything, when I point out that humans are infact not chicken? Your video has very limited value to your argument of same viability for humans.

No idea why you're now linking some abortion video, as if it has any relevance either. Apart from trying to make emotional argument against womens rights to bodily autonomy.

Claiming that religion plays no part, is flat out lies. It infact plays a major part, especially in the right wing and their actions. See this thread for example, and the radicals in here.

[Espe]

DON'T CLICK IF YOU ARE DISTURBED BY INTENSE MEDICAL IMAGES

First of all, if we're allowed to post shit like this these forums are about to get a lot more interesting.

Secondly, again, you're knee-deep in the right-wing rhetoric that young girls and women just love to have abortions.

News flash: no one is getting a late-term abortion for "funsies." That's, simply put, a pants-on-head insane belief. The only time these procedures are even considered is when the mothers life is in danger.

I don't think you could be more disingenuous if you tried.

[A dot Ham]

Well at least you own your gleeful indifference to the suffering and bodily autonomy of young girls and women.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/faq.php?...orumrules_spam

Excessively communicating the same phrase, similar phrases, or pure gibberish

I would define purposely cherry picking your trigger words as gibberish... and your repetition of your rhetorical ranting more than qualifies as excessively communicating the same phrase or similar phrase. Enjoy your timeout.

You see that little box next to my name. It allows viewers to go the actual post you're quoting, and they can see how you are purposely being obtuse.

We're done.

You moving out of Ohio? Or perhaps you'd like to move to state where we are far more liberal (like California) where we (ironically) have the same laws.

[Espe]

The baby requires the mother to live and requires her womb and body. If my brother needed a kidney from me, I have every right to refuse (I wouldn't). This is about having control over what happens to your own body and the right to not go through treatment and medical procedures.

Bingo.

The concept of bodily autonomy is clearly defined. Young girls and women should have the right to decide what happens with their own bodies, regardless of Republican "feels" or backwards religious dogma.

[A dot Ham]

You link me video of chicken embryo, and ask me what does it have to do with anything, when I point out that humans are infact not chicken? Your video has very limited value to your argument of same viability for humans.

No idea why you're now linking some abortion video, as if it has any relevance either. Apart from trying to make emotional argument against womens rights to bodily autonomy.

Claiming that religion plays no part, is flat out lies. It infact plays a major part, especially in the right wing and their actions. See this thread for example, and the radicals in here.

Hold up and put your SJW flag away for second and have a reasonable conversation.

Obviously I know that chickens aren't humans... come on now.

The point of the video was to show that we are probably not all that far off from being able to take what would otherwise be an aborted embryo/fetus and grow it in a tube (if necessary).

IF that were possible, this argument of murder vs choice, that is sometimes stemmed from religious background would not matter.

Under this hypothetical test tube scenario, a woman, could end the pregnancy on her end, and the baby or potential baby could "live". Win/win for both advocates. It becomes more of a procedural thing as to how abortions or (embryo relocations) are performed.

The purpose of providing that link (which was simply a google image search of late term abortion) is not posted to sway your opinion one way or the other. Democrat or republican, religious or not, pro-life, or pro-choice, those images are disturbing, and people from both ends of the spectrum make decisions that prevent what is going on in these images from happening.

Your argument that only religious republicans are the ones that make any form of legislation in regards to abortion is ridiculous and completely false.

[Edge-]

Anti-abortion - the notion that every child deserves a chance to be born and succeed in life.

Which usually is backed up with the "all life is sacred!" refrain, or at least it was until the right could no longer defend against people pointing out the hypocrisy of such a statement coming from people who support the death penalty.

Now it's "innocent" life or "babies!", neither of which holds much water either. There are plenty of people on death row who have been found innocent of their crimes upon appeal, and plenty that were wrongly killed due to a wrongful conviction. So one cannot be sure that the people who are on death row are all guilty of their crimes.

Also, a fetus is not a baby, hence the different name.

Also, that "give babies a chance"! argument seems to end the second that baby is out of the womb. From that point on, the right seems largely of the opinion that the baby needs to pull itself up by their little baby bootstraps, because like fucking hell do they want to help pay to take care of the baby should it be born into a poor family who cannot afford to care for it on their own.

So again, more hypocrisy. "Protect the baby!!!...until it's born, then fuck it."

Death penalty - imposed on people that were BORN, where given their chance to succeed, and fucked it up (and are detrimental to society.)

Or were wrongly convicted to due to a biased jury, false evidence to testimony, mistakes on the part of the police or defense, or a host of other reasons for why a number of death row inmates have had their convictions overturned time and time again. Yeah, plenty are still absolutely guilty, but given the flaws in the system I'd be hard pressed to say that we can be reasonably sure that no truly innocent individuals are on death row.

Also, there's a reason why more and more developed nations are doing away with the death penalty. Because its fucking barbaric and should not be something that any developed nation tolerates inside its borders.

To claim that anti-abortion and the death penalty are somehow similar and to suggest that you are a hypocrite if you are against abortion and for the death penalty is ignorant.

Again, considering how often the "all life is sacred!!" argument was used in the past, and it's still even used to this day despite the pivot to "innocent life is sacred!" (which ignores basically the entirety of the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus, but that's a whole other topic that's not allowed in these forums), yes, I'd feel comfortable saying a large number of people who are pro-death penalty and anti-abortion are hypocrites.

[Crissi]

Yeah guys, do not post abortion pics or even links to abortion pics

[Espe]

The purpose of providing that link (which was simply a google image search of late term abortion)

Again, this right-wing rhetoric that young girls and women are getting late-term abortions for "funsies" just doesn't hold up to even mild scrutiny. The only time these procedures happen is when the girl or woman's life is in danger.

The only reason to frame the problem in such a way is to be completely disingenuous because you know you've already lost the argument.

[Edge-]

Wait what? What does that have to do with anything?
DON'T CLICK IF YOU ARE DISTURBED BY INTENSE MEDICAL IMAGES
*snippy snip - dont post abortion pics or links to them*
DON'T CLICK IF YOU ARE DISTURBED BY INTENSE MEDICAL IMAGES

Democrat or republican... most people find these things pretty disturbing. THAT is why these laws get past.

There are plenty of disturbing images of things that are perfectly legal. I fails to see how, "eeewwwww, this looks gross!" is a good basis for legislating, though. Looking through some of the sites posting those images, many seem to fail to provide context around them. Were these aborted babies already dead when they were removed? Was the life of the mother at risk and a very late-term abortion was the only way to ensure she did not die due to complications? etc. Remember, abortions that late in the game are extremely rare, it's not like the lie Trump told about women getting abortions right up until the day before they're due.

Simply, "look at these gross things!" is a terrible argument, dude.

You can have morals and values that cause you to dictate your decisions and the laws you vote on that have NOTHING to do with religion. That is a very easy and stereotpyical argument.

It's hard to ignore the fact that it's been the religious right in the US that have been the primary opponents of abortion. It's very much played out as a religious (which in the US largely means "Christian") vs. secular issue overall.

[Hogarr]

I am against the death penalty, yes.

So it's safe to assume you're okay with paying for an inmates hotel fee for life then?

[Noxx79]

Yep, kick them the fuck out of the country ASAP. I could not care less if they grew up here - they are NOT American citizens.

I hope Trump kicks every single illegal DREAMer out the country.

That's what I thought. Conservatives only care about "children" only until they leave the uterus.

In case you don't understand my point:

You said that Capital Punishment is OK because the murderer had a chance to screw up his life, whereas the "unborn" have not. How is that different than children who came to this country illegally through no fault of their own?

PS: From Trump's Man of the Year interview:

"We’re going to work something out that’s going to make people happy and proud,” Trump told the magazine. “They got brought here at a very young age, they’ve worked here, they’ve gone to school here. Some were good students. Some have wonderful jobs. And they’re in never-never land because they don’t know what’s going to happen.”

[Noxx79]

So it's safe to assume you're okay with paying for an inmates hotel fee for life then?

Yes, they're called prisons.

[Edge-]

So it's safe to assume you're okay with paying for an inmates hotel fee for life then?

A number of prisons have work programs for their inmates, where prisoners work "jobs" that they earn a wage for. These wages (below minimum) can be used for a variety of things including paying back the families of their victims, allowing them to save up some money so they have something to start with when they leave prison rather than leaving dead broke, and pay for their part of the costs associated with housing them. I don't think it's anywhere near universal though, so I'd love to see the program expanded. I know when I visited Terminal Island (minimum/low security federal prison for non-violent offenders or folks who were in for more serious crimes but moved there due to good behavior) years back they had a chain-link fence production facility and were building fences for the Southern border, programs like that.

And yes, I'm fine with paying taxes to house inmates with the hopes of rehabilitating them so that they can be productive members of society, but if that's not possible than housing them away from the rest of society in a place where they and everyone else can be safe.

I'm against death, even if that means it hurts my pocketbook a little bit.

[Trump]

Also, there's a reason why more and more developed nations are doing away with the death penalty. Because its fucking barbaric and should not be something that any developed nation tolerates inside its borders.

Nothing "barbaric" at all about the death penalty - easily tolerated,

I am an atheist - I couldn't care less about the "God" aspect. While there are definitely cases of people on death row that were wrongfully accused and have been exonerated, mankind is not perfect. We make mistakes. Still, I will take those mistakes as the MAJORITY of people on death row were correctly convicted and should be put to death (if so warranted.)

Regardless, there is NOTHING hypocritical about being an-abortion and pro-death penalty. The two issues don't even remotely exist in the same realm.

- - - Updated - - -

You said that Capital Punishment is OK because the murderer had a chance to screw up his life, whereas the "unborn" have not. How is that different than children who came to this country illegally through no fault of their own?

Too bad that their parents are fucking criminals and forced their children to become criminals as well. Get the fuck out of the USA and go back to THEIR actual country that they are citizens of. Kick the parents AND the kids out at the same time.

[Espe]

The two issues don't even remotely exist in the same realm.

Maybe in your mind.

Objectively, obviously there is a direct comparison.

Even more telling, however, is the anti-choice zealots who are totally ok with abortion in cases of rape and incest. Pardon everyone who isn't steeped in willful ignorance when they see these lazy arguments for what they are - yet another chance for Republicans to cause mass harm to US citizens.

[Noxx79]

Nothing "barbaric" at all about the death penalty - easily tolerated,

I am an atheist - I couldn't care less about the "God" aspect. While there are definitely cases of people on death row that were wrongfully accused and have been exonerated, mankind is not perfect. We make mistakes. Still, I will take those mistakes as the MAJORITY of people on death row were correctly convicted and should be put to death (if so warranted.)

Regardless, there is NOTHING hypocritical about being an-abortion and pro-death penalty. The two issues don't even remotely exist in the same realm.

- - - Updated - - -



Too bad that their parents are fucking criminals and forced their children to become criminals as well. Get the fuck out of the USA and go back to THEIR actual country that they are citizens of. Kick the parents AND the kids out at the same time.

So you have no sympathy for the kids as long as they're outside the body. Glad to know you're a hypocrite. Besides, Dear Leader is going to treat them well, so yet another promise broken.

I think this may be a record for number of promises broken before someone even takes office.

[unfilteredJW]

Regardless, there is NOTHING hypocritical about being an-abortion and pro-death penalty. The two issues don't even remotely exist in the same realm..

Of course not Rannypoo. If they were, your ilk would maybe learn something.

[ElDoorO]

Again, Republicans have made that abundantly clear.

And just fyi sunshine, the man doesn't go through pregnancy and all the complications that it can cause for the woman, up to and including death. That's a "yuge" difference, as your kind would say.

My, my, you're upset. Perhaps you should calm down "sunshine" (your word, not mine).

Republican't haven't made it "abundantly clear" unless they specifically said "we hate women and we want to control them". They are talking about one specific issue and, in this case, abortion.

You'll notice they haven't ran a platform on how you need the man's consent to get their bits fixed. I notice no liberal/democrat ever brings that up either.
I notice how it's never brought up that tampons and pads are considered a luxury item but either party.

This isn't gender warfare or hatred. That's just you trying to make people defensive by you going on the offensive. Such tactics do not work on me very well. You'll want to calm down and examine a better course of action such as sincere debate.

Is your argument that since the man doesn't have to carry then he shouldn't have a choice? Does this further carry to he shouldn't have responsibility either? Or are you wanting to pick and choose which sexist things to have happen here? I question if you sincerely want balance or as close to equality as we can get and instead want control or supremacy. Your response, if any, will be very telling.

I have an issue with rules that are based upon you forcing other people to live under your own subjective, religious moral code.

- - - Updated - - -



The system is already fair. Both parties are financially responsible if there is a child.

It is not fair, actually. She can abort without his consent. He has no control over that. If he wants the kid -- he can't make her carry it. Conversely, she can carry it without his consent /and/ he's responsible for it and in the US that carries some weird consequences (weird relative to other countries, the US is just... weird -- example: instead of a static amount, they get some percentage of his income which if he loses his job he's still responsible for? Huh?).

We have a system of unfairness that inherently can't be made "fair". I'll be curious when the left will admit: The world can't be made 100% fair and some genders can do things others can't.

But, if you want to leave things as are and still allow abortions -- then I'd like to press another question: Do you think the current system, as it stands, is as fair as it will ever be and there's nothing better, at least that you can think of, to make things more fair for either gender? I'll be very curious to see if you only think of one gender or if both come to your response(s).

then he can find a WILLING body to grow a child in

That's not how it works.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing "barbaric" at all about the death penalty - easily tolerated,

I am an atheist - I couldn't care less about the "God" aspect. While there are definitely cases of people on death row that were wrongfully accused and have been exonerated, mankind is not perfect. We make mistakes. Still, I will take those mistakes as the MAJORITY of people on death row were correctly convicted and should be put to death (if so warranted.)

Regardless, there is NOTHING hypocritical about being an-abortion and pro-death penalty. The two issues don't even remotely exist in the same realm.

- - - Updated - - -



Too bad that their parents are fucking criminals and forced their children to become criminals as well. Get the fuck out of the USA and go back to THEIR actual country that they are citizens of. Kick the parents AND the kids out at the same time.

I'm pro-death penalty and pro-choice. Wait, let me back that up. I'm pro-death penalty in principle -- in practice I'm anti-death penalty. Why? Because I don't trust our justice system enough.

I, too, am an atheist and think some people just need to be put down. Specifically if they are a risk to society and jail staff and jail members --and-- can't be rehabilitated within reason. At some point I think it's better to kill them than to keep them in prison indefinitely, IF I could trust the system.

While the majority were (arguably) correctly killed -- I am not willing to let an innocent person die who just couldn't afford a good enough lawyer or malicious or selfish prosecutors.

I think the hypocritical stance about pro-life and being pro-death penality is that the core concept of being pro-life is about LIFE BEING SACRED. Now I can see your response: A baby is innocent while the criminal is not. Certainly, I could agree with that, but that's not what people follow up with.

The second the baby exits the womb the right-wing doesn't give two flying fucks if they exist. There's very little support and the attack on welfare is constant.

So I'd argue they aren't "pro-life" as much as they are "pro-birth". I think that distinction is important.

So to cap this off: I could find ways they could exist on the same realm but we're all talking about vague ideas without agreeing on the core concepts to have a thorough discussion here.