Ohio passes 'heartbeat' abortion bill

[Thresh1]

I did respond to you. My reply was just very short. I don't feel like banging my head against your brick wall anymore. Not worth my time when you purposefully ignore parts of what I say.

You're response to me was to tell me to respond to someone else. That's literally a non-response.

Here's the quote if it was too long ago for you to remember:

Quote Originally Posted by Thresh1 View Post
Lulwut? Are you now questioning if humans are of more worth than animals?

You owe Tota a response...

You were right about it being short though, lol.

Second, no, you want to force women to sustain the fetal life.

And you want to kill the defenseless human inside her. I think I'll choose to save the child inside her rather than allow her to kill them because she's "not ready."

The fetas has no will of its own. The woman does. If she wants the fetus out. Out it goes within the alloted time limit.

So, your position is that since the "The [sic] fetas has no will of its own", they don't have human worth enough to not be killed off by a mother who just wants to party more? Do people who are asleep, in comas, knocked out, under anesthesia, etc., who don't have a "will", not deserve human rights? Of they deserve them, so your conception of when someone has the right not to be killed is extremely inconsistent, and invalid.

And what is this time limit you are referring to? Until birth? You mean the time when you can hang a baby's butt out of his mother's vagina, scramble up his brains, killing him? This is the sort of thing bodily autonomy gets you...utter atrocity.

Also; Half of pregnancies, intended or not, misscarry naturally. Is that involuntary manslaughter? Neglect? Conception happened, implantation did not. So in your words, women kill half their children involuntarily.

Why would a random death of someone, by natural causes, be manslaughter or neglect? No, babies die inside women naturally; do you think that women can control their uterus through sheer will, lol? Hopefully women do everything they can to ensure that they implant, i.e. vitamins and stuff. Do you think that SIDS babies are "involuntary manslaughter"? What a confused thought.

[Total Crica]

you want to kill the defenseless human

nope, I want to remove MY unwanted pregnancy from MY womb. IT'S death is the result of IT not being viable without the use of MY womb.

[Halyon]

Why would a random death of someone, by natural causes, be manslaughter or neglect? No, babies die inside women naturally; do you think that women can control their uterus through sheer will, lol? Hopefully women do everything they can to ensure that they implant, i.e. vitamins and stuff. Do you think that SIDS babies are "involuntary manslaughter"? What a confused thought.

It doesn't die in the womb. It gets flushed out to die because it didn't implant.

And yes, I'm saying because the fetus doesn't have qualities that is required to qualify for human rights that can contest the womans right, then it's ok to terminate the pregnancy, subsequently killing the fetus as it cannot sustain itself without being the womb. It still does not have full human rights when it is granted protection during pregnancy either, at around 20 weeks. So we are erring on the 'safe' side to not harm it more than neccessary.

But those words are lost on you, and your lack of biological understanding.

[NineSpine]

You're response to me was to tell me to respond to someone else. That's literally a non-response.

Here's the quote if it was too long ago for you to remember:



You were right about it being short though, lol.



And you want to kill the defenseless human inside her. I think I'll choose to save the child inside her rather than allow her to kill them because she's "not ready."



So, your position is that since the "The [sic] fetas has no will of its own", they don't have human worth enough to not be killed off by a mother who just wants to party more? Do people who are asleep, in comas, knocked out, under anesthesia, etc., who don't have a "will", not deserve human rights? Of they deserve them, so your conception of when someone has the right not to be killed is extremely inconsistent, and invalid.

And what is this time limit you are referring to? Until birth? You mean the time when you can hang a baby's butt out of his mother's vagina, scramble up his brains, killing him? This is the sort of thing bodily autonomy gets you...utter atrocity.



Why would a random death of someone, by natural causes, be manslaughter or neglect? No, babies die inside women naturally; do you think that women can control their uterus through sheer will, lol? Hopefully women do everything they can to ensure that they implant, i.e. vitamins and stuff. Do you think that SIDS babies are "involuntary manslaughter"? What a confused thought.

When a baby dies, the police investigate to make sure there was no foul play, and if the parents didn't do everything they could to prevent it, they absolutely are held accountable. By your logic, miscarriage caused by poor diet is just as much manslaughter as not feeding your five month old enough. In order for you to be consistent, you would have to believe that the government should monitor and investigate all miscarriages.

[Total Crica]

When a baby dies, the police investigate to make sure there was no foul play, and if the parents didn't do everything they could to prevent it, they absolutely are held accountable. By your logic, miscarriage caused by poor diet is just as much manslaughter as not feeding your five month old enough. In order for you to be consistent, you would have to believe that the government should monitor and investigate all miscarriages.

They do believe this should happen. They are part of a people who's mindset is that women are baby machines and should be forced to make babies, incubate babies, take care of babies, raise babies, etc. And if a woman doesn't wish this then she needs to be either forced to do so or denied society.

[Zeth Hawkins]

nope, I want to remove MY unwanted pregnancy from MY womb. IT'S death is the result of IT not being viable without the use of MY womb.

I love seeing people justify the murder of someone they consider less-than-human.

And yes, I'm saying because the fetus doesn't have qualities that is required to qualify for human rights that can contest the womans right, then it's ok to terminate the pregnancy, subsequently killing the fetus as it cannot sustain itself without being the womb. It still does not have full human rights when it is granted protection during pregnancy either, at around 20 weeks..

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a curious thing.

- - - Updated - - -

What baby?

Translation: What Human?

[Total Crica]

I love seeing people justify the murder of someone they consider less-than-human

Just because you can't survive without the use of my body doesn't mean I murdered you if I remove you from the use of my body, nor does it mean I consider you less human then me.

[Halyon]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a curious thing.

Abortion is legal up until 20 weeks I think it was, at maximum. It's legal by law. Soo...

Oh, and btw...

The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

[Total Crica]

Abortion is legal up until 20 weeks I think it was, at maximum. It's legal by law. Soo...

Oh, and btw...

Federal law is 24 and is based on the chance of viability outside of the womb, 16 states are now breaking federal law by deciding on 20 in those states. Just like federal law states mary jane use is illegal, but there are states that are breaking that law by deciding to make it legal in their state.

[JoaoPinga]

I love seeing people justify the murder of someone they consider less-than-human.

Yet you will often see the same people justifying the murder of children during war.
Ex: abortion is wrong because it's a defenseless baby, but the atomic bombings were fine, even though they killed a lot of babies.

It's easy to argue like that. You are MURDERING BABIES! That's so EVIL!
Read this and try again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion



Now...

The estimated number of abortions around the globe are around 40 millions this year. In the US, official numbers show around 1 million. But the US numbers are dropping every year. Data shows that countries like the US that allow abortion and offer some kind of assistance are doing a lot better than those that ignore the problem. I mean, it seems most countries don't even have official numbers! Most politicians still seem to think that this is a "imoral" problem that doesn't deserve their times.

Abortion is a terrible thing for a mother, yet 40 million of them did this year. And a lot of them did not survive. Most of them in countries where abortion is forbidden. Those mothers don't need your opinion. They don't care if you think they are EVIL BABY MURDERERS. They need assistance. Otherwise, a lot of them will continue to die. And their babies too.

You want to reduce abortion? So do I. Then we need to offer assistance to those mothers. Offer options. And AFAIK (I'm not from the US, correct me if I'm wrong), the US is doing a above average job (not the bar seems that high around the world) on offering options and reducing the abortion numbers. But now you want to reduce those options? Give those mothers even less assistance? How is this going to help?

[Thresh1]

You don't NEED your kidney. The woman doesn't NEED her womb. I need your kidney. The fetus NEEDS her womb. The analogy is perfectly apt. You just don't like it because it thoroughly dismantles your argument against the right to bodily autonomy.

You didn't interact with the objections, but instead you merely restated your argument and avoided my objections. Let me sum up for you since you couldn't be bothered the first time:

The mother is not merely passively with holding support, she is actively killing her baby.

The baby doesn't need something as valuable as a kidney (of which you only have two), but they instead just need some time in the uterus.

You don't need my kidney because of me, but the baby does need to live in her womb because of the mother.

Finally, the baby is the mother's child. Surely you have more responsibility for your own flesh and blood family, than you do a complete stranger.

Besides, it's not like we can't craft an even more apt one. What if I need your blood? You have plenty of that. Can I take it by force if I need it?

Some of the same reasons apply as in the previous situation:

The baby is the mother's child. Surely you have more responsibility for your own flesh and blood family, than you do a complete stranger.

Unless I drained your blood, it's not my fault that you need it. But it is the mother and father's fault that the baby needs the mother to live.

I can choose to not donate my blood to save you, but I can't choose to kill you (unless you are trying to take my blood by force, of course.) The mother has to kill her child to end the pregnancy.

Also, the baby doesn't "force" anything, as you put it. It is 100% innocent. It is the mother and father who forced the baby to be in this situation in the first place.

Your analogy would fit closer if I caused you to need my blood somehow, and if giving blood was a natural part of life like being pregnant is.

How about this: A five year old needs a partial liver transplant from his father. The father isn't going to be harmed by this, as partial live transplants have few costs in otherwise healthy people, much like pregnancies. Can we strap the father down and FORCE him to donate? No, we can't, even for his own child, because he has a right to bodily autonomy.

How many analogies are you gonna come up with?

The father didn't force the child to need a liver. The mother forced the baby to exist, not the other way around.

The father can with hold his support in donating his liver, but he cannot actively kill the child.

Take for example, this analogy. If a mother is caring for her toddler and she decides that she doesn't want to take care of the child any longer, she can give the child to the state. But she CANNOT stop feeding the child or kick the toddler out of her house in the winter until someone picks up the child. She should not stop caring for the child, especially in a way that will lead to the child's death. (Or if someone was babysitting kids for a month, they cannot do these things until the parents get back, etc.)

We can force her to take care of the kid until another opportunity comes along (the social worker), because we rightly have the life and safety of the child in mind when forcing her to take care of the kid. In the same way, we should "force" a woman to birth a baby, that she put there in the first place, that is already in utero. This provides for the life and health of the baby, which is more important than her desire to "party more" or whatever.

The woman has a right to bodily autonomy.

Bodily autonomy doesn't trump right to life. Life is the most fundamental and basic of rights. It's the highest on the list, obviously. If you don't even have a right to life, then the other rights become meaningless.

You wouldn't let a conjoined twin kill the other one simply because he says "I have a right to bodily autonomy! And I don't want him in my body. Therefore, let's kill them and cut him out of me."

If bodily autonomy is right, why prosecute mothers for taking drugs that harm their baby, like crack? Why be mad about a baby coming out as a crack baby? Her body her choice, right? According to bodily autonomy...

Also, bodily autonomy justifies the insanity that is partial birth abortions. This is where they hang a baby's butt out of the mother's vagina, ram a metal, vacuum rod through the back of their neck, and suck out their brains TO KILL THEM and then remove the dead body seconds later. Complete lunacy.

The mother consented to the risk of pregnancy, but she did not consent to pregnancy itself. Similarly, you consent to the risk of a car accident every time you drive, but you don't consent to actually getting into a car accident.

If you accidentally hit an innocent bystander with a car, injuring them, you don't get to kill them in order not to pay their medical bills or insurance. If you hit a another car, you don't get to kill them to not pay more on your insurance. Everytime you drive, you take these risks and you don't get to avoid the responsibility just because you can't be bothered with it.

I can't slam my car into your car and go "Well, you consented to this so you can't hold anyone responsible but yourself!" If I decide not to get a fire alarm, I've consented to the risk of doing that, but that's not the same as consenting to burning to death.

This doesn't apply because the baby didn't slam their body into the mother's womb. The baby didn't do anything. THE MOM DID. The mom is responsible...how hard is this for you to understand?

These concepts are constructed and implemented for the normal scenario, not for freak, outside the norm occurrences. It's asinine and impractical (not to mention impossible) to construct a moral or ethical system in accordance with every possible situation, no matter how rare. That said, legally speaking, siamese twins are recognized legally to be individual persons, and it is not common medically for siamese twins who are so entwined that they cannot be told apart to live for very long at all anyway.

Some conjoined twins can be separated and therefore my point still stands. So, you don't think bodily autonomy applies when there is another person involved, eh?

And the unborn human should be "recognized legally to be individual persons." That is what the whole pro-life cause is about. Having the unborn's human right recognized by law, which includes the most fundamental right, to live.

[Total Crica]

the unborn's human right...

...doesn't exist unless the pregnant woman in question ALLOWS it to remain in her womb, period, full stop, get off her train and find a woman who doesn't mind letting an unborn human remain in her womb.

[Thresh1]

It doesn't die in the womb. It gets flushed out to die because it didn't implant.

Oh, I'm sorry, let me add "do you think that women can control their [Fallopian tubes, internal organs, etc.] through sheer force of will?" Nice way to zero in on a irrelevant technicality and AVOID the objection. The point is, we don't prosecute people for deaths that are of natural causes or beyond human control.

And yes, I'm saying because the fetus doesn't have qualities that is required to qualify for human rights that can contest the womans right, then it's ok to terminate the pregnancy, subsequently killing the fetus as it cannot sustain itself without being the womb.

Finally, you abandon all these garbage arguments and go to the ONLY question that matters -- does the unborn human deserve human rights? Here though, you merely assert that if a human can't live outside a mother's body, then it has no human rights. Why think this? I've already mentioned why I think this is non-sense, go ahead and make your argument, instead of a bare assertion.

It still does not have full human rights when it is granted protection during pregnancy either, at around 20 weeks. So we are erring on the 'safe' side to not harm it more than neccessary.

And when medical tech advances even more (as it has already been doing) to grant earlier viability, then humans will possess human rights earlier? Ummm, no. Being able to live outside a womb doesn't say anything about your worth as a human being.

Also, this is a highly controversial statement, to say that viability is the determing factor. So no, we are not being on the safe side as we haven't come ANYWHERE near close to consensus on when a human attains human rights in society, philosophy, and science, etc.

But those words are lost on you, and your lack of biological understanding.

Another empty statement not based on any discernible logic...

[Halyon]

Oh, I'm sorry, let me add "do you think that women can control their [Fallopian tubes, internal organs, etc.] through sheer force of will?" Nice way to zero in on a irrelevant technicality and AVOID the objection. The point is, we don't prosecute people for deaths that are of natural causes or beyond human control.

Finally, you abandon all these garbage arguments and go to the ONLY question that matters -- does the unborn human deserve human rights? Here though, you merely assert that if a human can't live outside a mother's body, then it has no human rights. Why think this? I've already mentioned why I think this is non-sense, go ahead and make your argument, instead of a bare assertion.



And when medical tech advances even more (as it has already been doing) to grant earlier viability, then humans will possess human rights earlier? Ummm, no. Being able to live outside a womb doesn't say anything about your worth as a human being.

Also, this is a highly controversial statement, to say that viability is the determing factor. So no, we are not being on the safe side as we haven't come ANYWHERE near close to consensus on when a human attains human rights in society, philosophy, and science, etc.

Another empty statement not based on any discernible logic...

I haven't abandoned any arguments. Because those arguments are why a fetus has no rights, and doesn't warrant any rights beyond what it already has. What you think logic is, is plain and simple batshit crazy crusading for special pleading just due to DNA, and your feelz. None of which have much innate merit, and doesn't automatically grant anything full human rights.

[Zeth Hawkins]

You want to reduce abortion? So do I. Then we need to offer assistance to those mothers. Offer options. And AFAIK (I'm not from the US, correct me if I'm wrong), the US is doing a above average job (not the bar seems that high around the world) on offering options and reducing the abortion numbers. But now you want to reduce those options? Give those mothers even less assistance? How is this going to help?

Huh? You think making abortions illegal wouldn't reduce the number of abortions?

And about "options": Sponges, patches, rings, pills, shots, implants, male/female condoms, cervical cap, vasectomy, diaphragm, pulling out, morning-after pill, spermicide, tubal ligation, IUD, fertility awareness, and old-fashioned abstinence.

- - - Updated - - -

What you think logic is, is plain and simple batshit crazy crusading for special pleading just due to DNA

God forbid we look at DNA to determine whether something's a human...

[Halyon]

God forbid we look at DNA to determine whether something's a human...

Human DNA doesn't grant you rights.

Also, making abortion illegal won't reduce the number of them by much. People will seek them illegally.

[Zeth Hawkins]

Human DNA doesn't grant you rights.

"Being human doesn't grant you human rights"

All aboard the crazy train!

[Halyon]

"Being human doesn't grant you human rights"

All aboard the crazy train!

It doesn't. Being a human PERSON, does. Your education and understanding of basic logic and biology is woefully lacking.

[solinari6]

I think something people need to realize, is that this isn't the 70s anymore. If you outlaw abortion, people aren't going to need to resort to coat hangers and such. There are prescription medications you can get your doctor to prescribe to you, that will cause an abortion 90% of the time if taken in a certain way. They aren't meant FOR abortions, but will cause one if taken "correctly".

These drugs are also available on the black and grey markets, oversees online pharmacies, etc ...

For more info, check this out:
http://www.womenonwaves.org/en/page/...ostol--cytotec

[Captain N]

I think something people need to realize, is that this isn't the 70s anymore. If you outlaw abortion, people aren't going to need to resort to coat hangers and such. There are prescription medications you can get your doctor to prescribe to you, that will cause an abortion 90% of the time if taken in a certain way. They aren't meant FOR abortions, but will cause one if taken "correctly".

These drugs are also available on the black and grey markets, oversees online pharmacies, etc ...

For more info, check this out:
http://www.womenonwaves.org/en/page/...ostol--cytotec

That's just it. This won't eliminate abortions but it will take away the safe legal way to get the procedure done. Taking "overdoses" of prescription medications to terminate a pregnancy is likely to have an adverse effect on the mother.