Ohio passes 'heartbeat' abortion bill

[Cts53]

well you sure as hell don't seem to value the women much in this equation no. they don't get any say remember ?

Also : what do you think is going to happen when an unwanted child is now born to an unwilling mother cause you forced her to carry to term and raise it ?
you imagine everything will be just peachy i take it ?

Adoption. Remember there is something called adoption. There are many infertile couples who would love to have children, and adoption is their only choice. Also those agencies take care of the mother through the process, typically by giving them an advocate and paying for their travel and medical.

Yes I do value women, they have a say before they engage in the act just like men. A man has no say whether he pays child support or not. Are you telling me that women cannot handle the responsibilities that come along with choosing to have sex?

Both parties agree to have sex, then both parties also agree to the possible outcomes. Simple as that.

[Muzjhath]

If the mother wasn't raped, and consented to the act of sex, then they also accept the possible outcomes of that act. There are plenty of ways to prevent pregnancies before hand if you arent responsible, but you are still agreeing to the possible consequences, 1 being pregnancy.

If you play with fire, you accept the chance of getting burned, and its your responsibility if you do. If you believe that you are adult enough to engage in sex, then obviously you are adult enough for the consequences.

I am simply using your logic, although a little extreme. I am merely showing you where your logic can go in regards to this.

Considering this statement, then you must obviously be of the opinion that you should never have heterosexual sex unless you want to get pregnant (or get your partner so). Since it might happen as contraceptives fail even when used correctly.
*just using the same logic*

[NineSpine]

Can you not be coherent without cursing? I mean really, is it possible? You come off as a child when you swear like that and hard to be taken seriously.

Who is the women that has the right to murder? If we all started off as zygotes, and we are all human, then that means that the zygote is also human because you don't simply transform from non-human to human, and therefore abortion is murder since you are taking the life and future of a human being away.

If the mother wasn't raped, and consented to the act of sex, then they also accept the possible outcomes of that act. There are plenty of ways to prevent pregnancies before hand if you arent responsible, but you are still agreeing to the possible consequences, 1 being pregnancy.

If you play with fire, you accept the chance of getting burned, and its your responsibility if you do. If you believe that you are adult enough to engage in sex, then obviously you are adult enough for the consequences.

I don't need to score any points (not even sure what you mean by this really), I am already happily married to the love of my life.

I am simply using your logic, although a little extreme. I am merely showing you where your logic can go in regards to this.

By that logic, sperm and eggs are human, and since those are made out of food materials the host consumed at some point, then the food is also human, and since that food was originally made out of energy from the sun, the sun is human.

[Shadowferal]

Can you not be coherent without cursing? I mean really, is it possible? You come off as a child when you swear like that and hard to be taken seriously.

You aren't going to take anyone that doesn't agree with you seriously anyway.
And your "logic" is infantile prattle. (Were you home-schooled" in some church?)
And you refuse to answer the question: Who are you to tell a woman what she can/cannot do?

If your answer isn't "no one," then I suggest you return to the Mideast where such groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda agree with your turpitude.

[Deleted]

So what this all boils down to is that you are sanctioning murder. If you accept that the zygote is indeed a human being, then you simply have to also accept that abortion is murder. Other-wise it wouldn't be called murder when a mother drowns her 2 year old baby. Because it is the will of its mother, and is less developed than say an 18 year old and cannot contribute to society.

This is all the same logic.

You cannot murder something which is not even born.

[Halyon]

Can you not be coherent without cursing? I mean really, is it possible? You come off as a child when you swear like that and hard to be taken seriously.

Who is the women that has the right to murder? If we all started off as zygotes, and we are all human, then that means that the zygote is also human because you don't simply transform from non-human to human, and therefore abortion is murder since you are taking the life and future of a human being away.

If the mother wasn't raped, and consented to the act of sex, then they also accept the possible outcomes of that act. There are plenty of ways to prevent pregnancies before hand if you arent responsible, but you are still agreeing to the possible consequences, 1 being pregnancy.

If you play with fire, you accept the chance of getting burned, and its your responsibility if you do. If you believe that you are adult enough to engage in sex, then obviously you are adult enough for the consequences.

I don't need to score any points (not even sure what you mean by this really), I am already happily married to the love of my life.

I am simply using your logic, although a little extreme. I am merely showing you where your logic can go in regards to this.

1; No woman has the right to murder. BY LAW, abortion is not murder, because the zygote/fetus is not classified as a human being (read; Person).

The protection of viability/'personhood' takes effect at around 20 weeks or very shortly thereafter depending on the area, some areas even sooner, but not based on such a garbage idea as heartbeat. You can be dead as a doornail, clinically braindead, but your heart can be kept beating artifically...doesn't mean that you're alive or any more human than someone with, say, an artificial heart, when we get there.

2; Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. You accept responsibility to deal with the consequences if they arise, this is true. Abortion is dealing with it. You just don't like it. Poor you. Having the opportunity to abort within a time-limit not made by chimps is a constitutional right for the woman.

Consent to driving a car is not consent to be left to die in the wreckage if it crashes.

Also, contraceptives can fail.

[Cts53]

Obviously a male...that has no idea and can even appreciate the physical changes that a teenager/woman goes through to carry a child.
Not to mention that the amount of children already in the system...a system that you likely don't even support anyway given that such a system is usually on the Left-side of the political spectrum to begin with.

So you know nothing about me, but decide to try and assume what I believe or know anyway? Nice, so where are your facts?

Did you know that my wife has done numerous amount of research into the changes during pregnancy and also the state of the adoption system and how it works or goes into it?

Did you know that most of those children in the system are taken from violent or drugged homes? Typically children put up for adoption as newborns do not stay in the system. Why? Because most couples that cannot have children want to experience the newborn stages, and want that child to know them as mom and dad.

So no, no matter how the baby came to be, if the mother chooses adoption, chances are that the child will be adopted. There are more families looking at any given point than mothers placing their unborn child up for adoption.

But yeah, I don't care at all about my wife's possible body changes when we get pregnant. Because that makes sense.

[Raelbo]

So now you are starting to get into some rather murky areas. Your same logic was used during slavery and the times that followed soon after and was the explanation as to why slaves didn't have the same rights. If you are a human being, then you obviously deserve basic human rights.

That's some pretty poor logic you're presenting there mate, and contains at least two logical fallacies.

The reasons why a zygote should not reasonably be entitled to the same rights as a former slaves are numerous and obvious. Stop being disingenuous.

So what this all boils down to is that you are sanctioning murder.

Nice strawman.

If you accept that the zygote is indeed a human being, then you simply have to also accept that abortion is murder.

What I said (and you quoted) was "I can accept that it meets a certain definition of being "human"". I further qualified that by continuing: "a zygote is fundamentally a lot less than every other human"

So for you to interpret that as me saying that I "accept that a zygote is indeed a human being" is somewhat absurd.

Other-wise it wouldn't be called murder when a mother drowns her 2 year old baby. Because it is the will of its mother, and is less developed than say an 18 year old and cannot contribute to society.

This is all the same logic.

I suggest you stop using the word logic, because clearly you have no clue what it is.

I what world does logic dictate that just because a zygote doesn't qualify for certain rights, a 2 year shouldn't either?

[NineSpine]

Adoption. Remember there is something called adoption. There are many infertile couples who would love to have children, and adoption is their only choice. Also those agencies take care of the mother through the process, typically by giving them an advocate and paying for their travel and medical.

The adoption system is totally broken and overburdened. There are WAY more children then their are parents looking to adopt. That's why huge numbers of kids stay in foster care until they are 18.

Yes I do value women, they have a say before they engage in the act just like men. A man has no say whether he pays child support or not. Are you telling me that women cannot handle the responsibilities that come along with choosing to have sex?

A woman that leaves a child with a man ALSO has to pay child support.

Both parties agree to have sex, then both parties also agree to the possible outcomes. Simple as that.

"You could have made a decision that WOULDN'T put you in a position where I tell you how to run your personal life!" is not a justification for running someone's personal life without their consent.For example, can I tell you that you aren't allowed to marry your wife because I don't want you to, because you could have chosen to marry someone else? No, that's asinine. You can't justify your argument for why YOU should control other peoples' lives and bodies by arguing that they should avoid the situation where you have inserted yourself.

[Halyon]

Adoption. Remember there is something called adoption. There are many infertile couples who would love to have children, and adoption is their only choice. Also those agencies take care of the mother through the process, typically by giving them an advocate and paying for their travel and medical.

Yes I do value women, they have a say before they engage in the act just like men. A man has no say whether he pays child support or not. Are you telling me that women cannot handle the responsibilities that come along with choosing to have sex?

Both parties agree to have sex, then both parties also agree to the possible outcomes. Simple as that.

Adoption is an alternative to parenthood, not pregnancy. And if the woman refuses to go through with a pregnancy, adoption is NOT, in fact, an option.

And if there are more families looking for kids than there are kids...why is the adoption system clogged with older kids left there to rot because nobody wanted them?

Actually, you answered this...yet you still preach adoption. Your stance on the subject disgusts me. Gonna force'm to birthe a child and take it away immediately so the game of pretend can be played...

The kid will be happy to have a family, blood-relation or not, yet older kids, especially ones with medical problem (or mental problems) are left were they are...

[Raelbo]

Can you not be coherent without cursing? I mean really, is it possible? You come off as a child when you swear like that and hard to be taken seriously.

Ok, I have to admit I laughed out loud when I read this. I agree with your sentiment, but honestly, given the quality of your critical thinking on display here, you are the last person to be calling others childlike.

[Cts53]

1
2; Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. You accept responsibility to deal with the consequences if they arise, this is true. Abortion is dealing with it. You just don't like it. Poor you. Having the opportunity to abort within a time-limit not made by chimps is a constitutional right for the woman.

Consent to driving a car is not consent to be left to die in the wreckage if it crashes.

Also, contraceptives can fail.

Abortion is not "dealing" with pregnancy, unless you view pregnancy as a disease.

Abortion is a way out of your responsibilities.
No, but you consent to the fact that a crash could happen (God forbid. Not wishing that on anybody) But when you drive, you know that essentially you are taking a risk, and accept that risk. If you are in a crash and its not your fault, you sue.

However the car isnt really a good way to try and justify abortion if the act of sex was consensual with both parties. You don't consent for the person to hit you, just the risk. You don't consent for a person to mug you if you are walking down a street at 2am, but you accept the risk.

Consensual sex, meaning both parties agree, is different. You both agree to the act, and therefore agree to the possible consequences. If you really don't want to deal with the consequences, then don't engage in the act. But if you engage in the act, you engage in the consequence.

Abortion is running away from responsibility, not dealing.

Also, if somebody's heart is beating artificially, and they are brain-dead, then they are dead. The heart cannot beat on its own. This is different from a zygote, whos heart beats on its own.

[Arunu]

Adoption. Remember there is something called adoption. There are many infertile couples who would love to have children, and adoption is their only choice. Also those agencies take care of the mother through the process, typically by giving them an advocate and paying for their travel and medical.

Yes I do value women, they have a say before they engage in the act just like men. A man has no say whether he pays child support or not. Are you telling me that women cannot handle the responsibilities that come along with choosing to have sex?

Both parties agree to have sex, then both parties also agree to the possible outcomes. Simple as that.

ermmm looking at the USA adoption programs and how they have been raising alarm bells for years now due to being overflowed with way too few placement options.... doubt it.

and no you don't value women, you skittle in wording around that with naming the unborn child more important ( they are not children yet but ill humor you) but you are stripping any say the woman had in it.
I am furthermore telling you that a possible outcome of sex MAY be pregnancy yes, if so, they are left with multiple options, adoption,abortion , keeping it etc.
you want to restrict them to one cause you say so.
Just because it goes against your beliefs does not mean anyone should adhere to those beliefs, taking responsibility to not put a child in a home where it is neither wanted or loved is a pretty gdm big taking responsibility bit.

If you don't believe in it/ oppose it, by all means don't do it, but don't force people out of options because you believe so.

[Cts53]

You cannot murder something which is not even born.

Then explain why when a pregnant women is murdered, it is considered a double homicide.

[Raelbo]

Both parties agree to have sex, then both parties also agree to the possible outcomes. Simple as that.

And as society we get to decide whether it is reasonable that one of those outcomes is being forced to carry the pregnancy to term. And simply put, it is not.

[Cts53]

By that logic, sperm and eggs are human, and since those are made out of food materials the host consumed at some point, then the food is also human, and since that food was originally made out of energy from the sun, the sun is human.

Sorry, the sperm and egg are not human because contraception has yet to accord. An egg can stay an egg for a very long time until it breaks apart, it will not change into a human. Same as with the sperm.

When the egg and sperm finally meet, that is when the change begins to occur and in nine months you give birth to a child.

[Halyon]

Abortion is not "dealing" with pregnancy, unless you view pregnancy as a disease.

Abortion is a way out of your responsibilities.
No, but you consent to the fact that a crash could happen (God forbid. Not wishing that on anybody) But when you drive, you know that essentially you are taking a risk, and accept that risk. If you are in a crash and its not your fault, you sue.

However the car isnt really a good way to try and justify abortion if the act of sex was consensual with both parties. You don't consent for the person to hit you, just the risk. You don't consent for a person to mug you if you are walking down a street at 2am, but you accept the risk.

Consensual sex, meaning both parties agree, is different. You both agree to the act, and therefore agree to the possible consequences. If you really don't want to deal with the consequences, then don't engage in the act. But if you engage in the act, you engage in the consequence.

Abortion is running away from responsibility, not dealing.

Also, if somebody's heart is beating artificially, and they are brain-dead, then they are dead. The heart cannot beat on its own. This is different from a zygote, whos heart beats on its own.

Oh here wo go with the "my way or the highway" again. Look, friendo, the constitution and law doesn't agree with you. Human rights don't agree with you, so the woman in question who wants an abortion has not a single obligation to care or agree with what you think.

Abortion IS dealing with the consequences. You just don't like them, but want to force women into going through with it anyway, because now she's a broodmare for the system. Classy. Abortion is btw safer than carrying a pregnancy through nowadays.

People want children? They can adopt some of the kids already stuck in the system. Not young and fresh enough? Too bad, they can deal with the consequences of not being able to grab one fresh off the stable shelf.

And yes, the car is a good way to explain it to you. You don't recognize a fully viable solution as a solution, so you wish to exclude it to force a specific outcome. Same as the car. Well, the car crashed, the driver consented to driving and possible death, so there's no need to save their life.

That's what you're saying, but willfully wants to ignore.

That you want to think what you think is fine. But you want to force it on other people, and this is were you'll get the argument, and you'll lose, because you're wrong.

And if you can see this (about heartbeat), then you should oppose this bill, because it's a stupid bill that goes against constitutional rights.

Oh, and look up what tokophobia is.

- - - Updated - - -

Then explain why when a pregnant women is murdered, it is considered a double homicide.

Restitution, nothing else.

[WoWGoneBad]

Off topic, but you get 20 cool points for using "Rad". I too say "Rad"

Off Topic, but Rad was a pretty cool movie too. Back when BMXing and Skateboarding movies were "Rad"

[Raelbo]

Then explain why when a pregnant women is murdered, it is considered a double homicide.

Simple: It's an emotive issue. Killing a pregnant woman is one of the most heinous acts anyone can commit. Surely you can understand that?

Therefore the law has made a special exception to recognise this for the purposes of justice.

One way of looking at the issue is that the difference between an aborted foetus and a foetus that grows into a baby is a decision by the mother. If a mother has made a decision to carry a pregnancy to term, then to all intents and purposes the baby can be assumed to come into existence in the future, therefore purposely killing the fetus is the equivalent of killing the baby.

I guess technically speaking that if a murderer of a pregnant woman could prove that the mother intended to have an abortion then the charge of double homicide should be reduced to simply murder.

[Cts53]

Oh here wo go with the "my way or the highway" again. Look, friendo, the constitution and law doesn't agree with you. Human rights don't agree with you, so the woman in question who wants an abortion has not a single obligation to care or agree with what you think.

Abortion IS dealing with the consequences. You just don't like them, but want to force women into going through with it anyway, because now she's a broodmare for the system. Classy. Abortion is btw safer than carrying a pregnancy through nowadays.

People want children? They can adopt some of the kids already stuck in the system. Not young and fresh enough? Too bad, they can deal with the consequences of not being able to grab one fresh off the stable shelf.

And yes, the car is a good way to explain it to you. You don't recognize a fully viable solution as a solution, so you wish to exclude it to force a specific outcome. Same as the car. Well, the car crashed, the driver consented to driving and possible death, so there's no need to save their life.

That's what you're saying, but willfully wants to ignore.

That you want to think what you think is fine. But you want to force it on other people, and this is were you'll get the argument, and you'll lose, because you're wrong.

And if you can see this (about heartbeat), then you should oppose this bill, because it's a stupid bill that goes against constitutional rights.

Oh, and look up what tokophobia is.

- - - Updated - - -



Restitution, nothing else.

You clearly are very angry, and I'm not entirely sure as to why.

I'm not saying my way or the highway, that hasnt been the case at all. I am merely defending my position.

Know what is safer than abortion? Not having sex. It's honestly not that hard.

What is your issue with adoption?

I don't think I went into the mother's life is in danger part, I actually stayed away from that. But I answered your car analogy, and whether you want to read it or not is fine. No skin off my back.

I am not forcing anything on anybody. If 2 people engage in an act, they accept possible consequences. You can try to prevent them, but they still have a chance of happening.

If you play with fire, you consent to getting burned.

Also, if somebody suffers from tokophobia, then obviously they should just stay away from sex. Why engage in something that possibly contributes to your fear? You don't need sex to live, so if you are terrified, then don't engage in the 1 single act that can end in pregnancy.