Ohio passes 'heartbeat' abortion bill

[God Save The King]

I was quoting an old statistic, and I think one that was generalized across all citizens. Regardless, I stand by my opinion that it's not a matter of women's rights, and any attempt to argue it as such is simply a distraction from the real issue. At what point should the fetus be considered a life, and in what situations is it alright to kill said life if it is a life?
Granted, I'm pro-choice. Morally, I would never support an abortion, but I think to try to debate semantics or philosophy is a silly exchange that leads nowhere, and there is very little proof one way or another about the fact itself. I would rather lean towards freedom than control, thus my decision.
My point here, though, is not to pretend this is an issue it's not. To cherry-pick these half brain-dead republicans who think women should stay at home all day as a source of how 'republicans hate women' is silly. The issue is Pro-life generally thinks it is the killing of a child, and pro-choice generally doesn't.
Also to add on to this ever increasing post, only 29% believe it should be legal in all circumstances, and only 13% in most. 19% believe it should never be legal (which frankly astounds me) and 36% believe it should only be legal in a select few situations. Perhaps a big aspect of the issue is the unwillingness of people to call themselves pro-life, which would be an interesting think to look into.

I don't think it's as simple as you portray it. It's not a binary issue of when a fetus becomes a child, and I don't believe that's where the argument is centered around. The pro-choice argument is a argument of women's rights, while the pro-life argument is an argument of when a fetus becomes a "life" and the rights surrounding that "life".

The pro-choice side generally doesn't care too much about when this fetus becomes a "life", nor is it really a cornerstone of the stance. I don't care when people want to call the lump of cells a "life", if the woman providing her body, her nutrients, and her life for it decides she no longer wishes to do so, that is her choice. And I believe most pro-choice people echo that sentiment.

The reason the sides argue for different reasons is because the pro-life side knows their argument cannot be centered on the idea of anti-women. It would gain no traction. The same reason exists for the pro-choice side. If they argued when the clump of cells becomes a "life", it would be hard to argue against pro-lifers because its more of a philosophical/ethics questions.

So I disagree that the argument is centered around when a fetus is a life. I believe one side focuses on women's rights and the other side focuses on when a fetus becomes a life and the rights surrounding that fetus.

[Nehezbegar]

Newsflash: people have sex. No amount of protection works 100% of the time. Abortion is a perfectly safe procedure, there is no medical reason it should be outlawed, only the willful ignorance of religion and Republican sop causes shit like this bill.

It is adorable though, when internet tough guys feel like got got one up on women by slut-shaming them on a gaming forum in some tiny corner of the internet. I hope you have a daughter some day.

I guess You are from the left, so i assume You are a global warming popularizer, so i will try to tackle this issue from the natures point of view.


For the nature, the purpose of sex is to reproduce, not to have fun on the saturdays night. If You want a safe sex do anal or become a homosexual. Or blame the nature that it gave ppl dicks and vaginas and if You connect them both there is a chance to spawn another beeing.

[Espe]

I guess You are from the left, so i assume You are a global warming popularizer, so i will try to tackle this issue from the natures point of view.

I guess you are from the right, so I assume you are a global warming denier, so I will try to tackle this issue from a scientifically illiterate point of view.

People have sex. No contraceptive works 100% of the time. Abortion is a medically safe procedure.

In the past thousands of young girls and women were butchered in dangerous operations. We decided as a country, long ago, that was no longer acceptable. Republicans attempting to circumvent the SC ruling just shows how desperate they are to cause mass harm to young girls and women. The fact that you are gleefully cheering them on says more about you than anything else.

[ezgeze]

*snippy snip*infracted - trolling

Uh oh, cant expose what really happens by posting a drawn picture, no, no, no. We cant possibly have that now.

Must.........not........see.........murder........exposed........
too terrible................triggered response......................
selfish..........must try to justify...................is not really
a person..............error, error. OMG

[Espe]

Uh oh, cant expose what really happens by posting a picture, no, no, no. We cant possibly have that now.

There's that victim complex, right on schedule.

Adorable, if not completely predictable

[Anevers]

I guess You are from the left, so i assume You are a global warming popularizer, so i will try to tackle this issue from the natures point of view.


For the nature, the purpose of sex is to reproduce, not to have fun on the saturdays night. If You want a safe sex do anal or become a homosexual. Or blame the nature that it gave ppl dicks and vaginas and if You connect them both there is a chance to spawn another beeing.

Not sure if you are serious or trying to bait someone with bad arguments and equally bad ideas.

While sex may lead to life, it doesn't always do so. More times than not a fertilized egg doesn't mean you'll have a child in 9 months. In addition as a species sex is more than a chance at passing your genes on, it has a lot of value out outside of that. With options available out there no one should refrain from having sex because of an unwanted pregnancy.

Moreover to point out one of your sillier points, one does not simply become homosexual. That just goes to highlight your general ignorance on this topic, and possibly many others.

[Dug]

Uh oh, cant expose what really happens by posting a drawn picture, no, no, no. We cant possibly have that now.

Must.........not........see.........murder........exposed........
too terrible................triggered response......................
selfish..........must try to justify...................is not really
a person..............error, error. OMG

This cringe. How embarrassing

[Miztickow]

People who say abortion should be outlawed because the answer is to not get pregnant in the first place, need to stop pushing for abstinence-only or no sex education and focus on comprehensive sex education before trying to outlaw abortion. Their position in the argument would be a lot better if everyone actually had the knowledge and tools to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

(I don't want abortion outlawed; I'm just pointing out a massive flaw in their plans.)

[Mormolyce]

Do your fingernails have a heartbeat? Do they have blood that is a different type than your blood? Do you honestly think an unborn baby is best compared to a fingernail?

I don't, that's why I was pointing out that having human DNA doesn't make something a human.

Nor does having a heartbeat or a different kind of blood to me.

Perhaps you'd like to tell me what makes something human, since you apparently think you know?

- - - Updated - - -

If a fetus isn't alive how come you will get charged with murder if you punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and cause her to abort?

Because of the pro life movement in several states trying to sneak their agenda into law.

Interestingly, the Bible specifically states that if you punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and she has a miscarriage, you get a fine. If the woman dies, you get death.

[ReleaseDay]

There is no such thing as an unborn child. By any definition of the word one must be born to be a child, so you cannot call a fetus a "child" unless you are intentionally trying to be incorrect.

Incorrect, it is a life that has been created. I bet you consider yourself an "atheist" (i.e a marxist tool) and thus have no problem taking lives.

[oxymoronic]

I make it a point not to give away too much personal information online, especially when I'm interacting with unhinged right-wingers. The FBI and DHS have both made statements about the right-wing being a major concern and causing the vast majority of domestic terrorism in the US. There's no reason for me to endanger my family by giving that info away to you people, but I'll be damned if you ever silence me or take away my constitutional rights.

i get it now, under 21, lives with mom and have no wife or children.

ps what makes you think im right wing and why the attempt to insult?

- - - Updated - - -

There were literally right-wingers earlier in the thread laughing about how women had to "buckle up" now and get used to only seeing doctors in back-alleys.

We lived through this shit as a country and decided religion wasn't enough of an excuse when our wives / sisters / daughters / mothers / cousins / neices were being butchered by the thousands. Why let religious nutjobs turn back the clock now?

you know that many whores? damn

[ElDoorO]

well I cant and wont speak for others. my concern is with the child

Are you pro-birth or pro-life? The latter requiring support for welfare of various kinds for /everyone/ (children grow up to be adults, those same ones people claim to care for usually don't care about them after a certain point anymore).

[Sargerasraider]

A woman is a person. A fetus is a loose clump of cells.

Hope that clears some things up for you, buddy

Here's the problem. You completely see things in black and white and utterly fail to see that there are shades of gray to issues.

Are you for abortion up to term, as you're only getting rid of "a clump of cells"? If you stand for complete bodily autonomy, then this is the logically consistent stance. However, at that stage, it is patently obvious that the fetus is no longer a clump of cells.

If you set the line earlier, how early? Viability? This is a woefully arbitrary point as it places decisions about personhood in relation to human technology. It also leads to morally questionable positions that a fetus is a person at 24 weeks in a developed country, but not in an undeveloped one.

If you use self awareness or self sufficiency, we might as well legalize infanticide.

At fertilization, a genetically distinct entity is created. If we could support that entity without a human body (probably not out of the realm of possibility in the next couple of hundred years), would we consider that an individual?

These are only a few examples.

You debate as if you spend time reading and then regurgitating pithy statements on blogs while thinking it makes you look erudite.

If you're in middle school and this is your first foray into debating, good for you. If you're past that, please try to see that there are sides of issues.

(At least you haven't invoked "southern strategy", "gerrymandering", or "fairytales" yet, which is a first for you to my knowledge... so +1 for you!)

I'll sit back waiting for you to claim that I'm triggered (as is your usual "defense" when you can't respond to arguments).

[ElDoorO]

Incorrect, it is a life that has been created. I bet you consider yourself an "atheist" (i.e a marxist tool) and thus have no problem taking lives.

Why do you think atheists lack empathy or sympathy?

Do you cry when you kill a fly? I certainly hope not. At some point, which is still fairly arbitrary but certainly not when a heart beats, a creature is "alive" in the sense that it can *feel* things. This requires a nervous system and the ability to process pain.

In the unlikely chance you don't know -- that's a nervous system + brain (that's developed enough to process more signals of your nervous system). Your heart is one of the first things you need to move nutrients around and certainly to live.

The silly pictures people see of a baby grasping a doctor's finger are, essentially, an emotional appeal covered by a lie. To prove this is quite simple. You know the hammer to the knee area thing the doctors do and your knee jerks a little? Same concept. You reacted without conscious input. Maybe that's not compelling enough. Your dead and I send a fuck ton of electricity into your body. Your hands tighten, you jerk, you do Stuff (TM) -- does this mean your alive? Of course not. Similarly when you grab a baby's hand that's you spending signals to it's brain and it's brain processing that in a weird way.

Now I'm all for aborting up until the day of birth if the mother's life is at stake or the baby is already dead or dying. I don't know the details of that or how any of that works though. I know basic biological processes and basic anatomy.

Outside of that I have no idea when I'd call the baby human enough to say "abortion is morally wrong" though. First week? Abortions are fine, regardless of reason, presuming you could magically know. So where is the line for me, personally? I'm uncertain but to throw a line out there to start I'd say when the nervous system can properly process pain -- so this would mean around the third trimester. The absolute earliest would be 23-24 weeks when important receptors even BEGIN to link up to the area of the brain that can process pain. This doesn't mean they DO process pain but this is the absolute earliest pain is possible.

So why am I focused on pain? No one is entitled to life. No one. You, me, anyone. Disagree? Tell that to Hitler and how we wanted him dead. Tell that to the tons of people who go around killing others about how others are entitled to life. Tell that to the tons of Americans who want welfare taken away about their entitlement to life. Tell that tow the soldiers that come back covered in the flag about their entitlement to life that we sent out to die. Nah, there is no entitlement to life. Even vegans need to eat something -- and they eat plants. Were those plants entitled to continue their chemical processes? Nope. They die so we can live. They aren't entitled to life. So my middle ground is when the cost of taking their live has a real impact to them, even if they can't remember it or process it correctly.

I hope, for your sake, you never have to experience your child or a close friend go through this and commit suicide because of your beliefs. Unlike you, I do know people. Their father called them a slut and a whore. She took her life. He grieves. I'm a cunt. I still say "So... is she still a slut or a whore -- oh, she's dead because of you. Cunt." -- I'm supposed to have sympathy for him. I do not. He didn't show her any and it cost us her life. I wonder how you'd react given a similar situation. He's not alone. A not an insignificant amount of parents are like this. I imagine you know how you'd think you'd react though. I hope you aren't one to make the world worse because of a lack of control of your emotions in that kind of situation.

Many people are one accidental pregnancy away from going from pro-birth to pro-choice.

[Espe]

i get it now, under 21, lives with mom and have no wife or children.

Projecting again?

Here's the problem. You completely see things in black and white and utterly fail to see that there are shades of gray to issues.

Look who's talking

Are you for abortion up to term

It is beyond ignorant for someone to believe that anyone wants to get a late-term abortion. Just another lie anti-choice zealots tell themselves to justify causing mass harm to young girls and women. Hope you're proud of yourself.

[zenkai]

There is no such thing as an unborn child. By any definition of the word one must be born to be a child, so you cannot call a fetus a "child" unless you are intentionally trying to be incorrect.

Arguing semantics? Very pointless.

[Espe]

I hope, for your sake, you never have to experience your child or a close friend go through this and commit suicide because of your beliefs. Unlike you, I do know people. Their father called them a slut and a whore. She took her life. He grieves. I'm a cunt. I still say "So... is she still a slut or a whore -- oh, she's dead because of you. Cunt." -- I'm supposed to have sympathy for him. I do not. He didn't show her any and it cost us her life. I wonder how you'd react given a similar situation. He's not alone. A not an insignificant amount of parents are like this. I imagine you know how you'd think you'd react though. I hope you aren't one to make the world worse because of a lack of control of your emotions in that kind of situation.

Many people are one accidental pregnancy away from going from pro-birth to pro-choice.

Interesting point of view for someone so eager to make excuses for Republicans when they go out of their way to fuck over women.

[Noxx79]

I guess You are from the left, so i assume You are a global warming popularizer, so i will try to tackle this issue from the natures point of view.


For the nature, the purpose of sex is to reproduce, not to have fun on the saturdays night. If You want a safe sex do anal or become a homosexual. Or blame the nature that it gave ppl dicks and vaginas and if You connect them both there is a chance to spawn another beeing.

Oh please, you think the dog humping your leg is trying to reproduce?

[Nehezbegar]

[/B]

Oh please, you think the dog humping your leg is trying to reproduce?

It definetly doesnt want little doggies

[ElDoorO]

Interesting point of view for someone so eager to make excuses for Republicans when they go out of their way to fuck over women.

Ahhh, identity politics. The last bastion of someone incapable of addressing the meat and potatoes of an argument.

Do you want to keep throwing out childish crap like that or do you actually want to discuss the issue at hand?