Ohio passes 'heartbeat' abortion bill

[Total Crica]

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

There are TONS of herbs and food that us women can ingest to ensure our periods happen, regardless if we are pregnant or not.

We can even extract our periods each month via a simple device we can use at home with a partner, regardless if we are pregnant or not.

Women have been aborting unwanted pregnancies for a very long time and it's not going to stop happening, regardless of any laws people try to create.

The ONLY thing anyone can actually do about this is HELP humans find a way to 100% never become pregnant via sex that has NO unwanted side effects.

Beyond that, you are just bitching about something you can not and will never be able to control.

[Nitro Fun]

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.

Abortions are illegal in numerous countries. Thailand has it banned but there's still a lot of abortions going on there, 300k+. South Korea has it banned, still a lot of abortions going on there. It's not free here either, still a lot of abortions.

Nobody should have to do tubal ligation just because they might be fucked over otherwise. That's just insane. As is abstinence. The other methods can fail, in case you didn't know.

[Thresh1]

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.

Again, stop asserting and make a case. You can't just say that a fetus has no right to life. You MUST make a case for it.

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.

First, examples of special pleading?

Second, I never said you have human rights because you have DNA. Don't strawman me...

You sound like you are just blowing out hot air at this point.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

First, abortions increased dramatically since Roe v Wade, not that it matters to whether or not it should be illegal.

Second, if we made murder illegal and the murder rate didn't go up, does that somehow mean that murder shouldn't be illegal? C'mon dude, this reasoning is appalling.

- - - Updated - - -

Abortions are illegal in numerous countries. Thailand has it banned but there's still a lot of abortions going on there, 300k+. South Korea has it banned, still a lot of abortions going on there. It's not free here either, still a lot of abortions.

Nobody should have to do tubal ligation just because they might be fucked over otherwise. That's just insane. As is abstinence. The other methods can fail, in case you didn't know.

OK, so what I'm getting from you is:

- Abstinence is insane (lol, what?)
- Mothers have to get abortions for some reason.
- And all you care about is the mother not getting "fucked over" because she just can't stand to let her baby live, but you curiously don't care about the baby getting really really "fucked over", as in killed.

[Halyon]

snip

Making a case against you is throwing pearls before swine. This is making me laugh at this point.

Second; Oh, what a grand case you make, dayum. More abortions. No sources as to why, how and were. Looking at places like Texas were they have abstinence only sex ed must have lowered the abortions ri-no wait, they went up like hell because people were dumb as rocks and uneducated about how sex worked and how to use birth control and were to obtain it.

That's just one example why it went up in certain areas and under which conditions.

But you are right, it doesn't matter as to if abortion should be legal or not. Fact; It should.

Buuut you lose that point immediately with your little murder argument. They're not the same thing. Not even in principle.

[kail]

"Being human doesn't grant you human rights"

All aboard the crazy train!

Having human DNA doesn't make some tissue a human. By your logic, men are flushing down "humans" by the billions during porn time. A single cell out of you contains your genetic code.

[Zeth Hawkins]

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

Being a person is what's required? Cool
"In general usage, a human being; by statute, however, the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcy, or receivers." -- Black's Law Dictionary

But please, insult me more. It toootally helps your argument.

Guys, this person just listed "pulling out" as a totally viable way of avoiding pregnancy (hint: it's not). And cites "fertility awareness" despite the notion that you can perfectly predict fertility cycles being debunked decades ago (even the best modern doctors can only go by "best guess" since cycles can fluctuate due to environment, diet, and even stress). So yeah, probably not someone worth wasting your time on lol.

Pfffft. So because you disagree with two of my listed options, and ignore the other fifteen, the entirety of my stance is poppycock? You have my pity.

Oh, and "pulling out" and "fertility awareness" are indeed both viable. Guaranteed? Of course not, and not once did I claim they were. As I said, before your odd reaction, they are options. They can lessen the chance of pregnancy, and can be used in conjunction with other methods to further lessen that chance.

But please, insult me more. It toootally helps your argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Having human DNA doesn't make some tissue a human. By your logic, men are flushing down "humans" by the billions during porn time. A single cell out of you contains your genetic code.

See guys, now this is how you make a good argument! But I'll assert that killing your own sperm/egg/skin/whatever cells is bodily autonomy. A zygote's or embryo's DNA is different from the parents, thus neither has bodily autonomy over it.

[Thresh1]

Making a case against you is throwing pearls before swine. This is making me laugh at this point.

I knew you were just hot air. Thanks for proving me right.

Second; Oh, what a grand case you make, dayum. More abortions. No sources as to why, how and were.

Well, it's quite obvious. Here's the CDC if you must know.

Year Abortions Reported
-----------------------------------
1972 - 586,760
1973 - 744,610 (roe v wade)
1974 - 898,570
.
.
1980 - 1,553,890

Not sure why you're so keen on making this completely irrelevant point...and you're wrong.
Historical abortion statistics, United States
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/18/health...on-fast-facts/

Looking at places like Texas were they have abstinence only sex ed must have lowered the abortions ri-no wait, they went up like hell because people were dumb as rocks and uneducated about how sex worked and how to use birth control and were to obtain it.

Abortions have been decreasing since the 90's, probably due to several reasons. One, medical technology showing that the baby inside the mother is not just a gob of goo or "clump of cells" like it was previously argued in the 70's -- this makes a difference when people see who they are killing.

Another, I'm sure the pro-choice side has hurt itself by aborting many, would-be pro-choice people and therefore lowering the people who would do such a thing themselves by virtue of their parents teaching them "it's ok". In a way, the pro-choice movement is killing themselves off.

And yes, thankfully we have stricter laws that limit abortions and save hundreds of thousands of lives.

But you are right, it doesn't matter as to if abortion should be legal or not. Fact; It should.

But of course you can't be bothered to actually prove that your belief is somehow a fact.

Buuut you lose that point immediately with your little murder argument. They're not the same thing. Not even in principle.

I don't "lose your point" that they aren't valuable human beings. You just don't support your "viability determines human value" assertion with any reasoning or evidence at all.

My "little murder argument"? Is that supposed to be a response to my analogy? My murder analogy was to make it clear that it doesn't matter whether or not the abortion rate goes up concerning the question "should abortion be legal?" You even admitted this a few lines above, when you said "But you are right, it doesn't matter as to if abortion should be legal or not".

Are you arguing with yourself now?

[Thresh1]

Having human DNA doesn't make some tissue a human. By your logic, men are flushing down "humans" by the billions during porn time. A single cell out of you contains your genetic code.

Yes, that works against the DNA objection. Killing sperm is the death of a mere human body part and not a human. In an abortion, you kill a human organism or otherwise known as, a human being. A distinct member of the species homo sapiens. If you have a period, then that does not kill a member of our species.

This is why the distinct DNA argument doesn't work for protecting human lives.

- - - Updated - - -

And I would argue it has no bodily autonomy over the mother. So if the mother says "No, you can't stay in my body", that's that.

Yes, but this ignores the unborn human's right to life, which bodily autonomy doesn't supersede.

[Shadowferal]

Yes, but this ignores the unborn human's right to life, which bodily autonomy doesn't supersede.

That's a religious belief.

[Orbitus]

Yes, but this ignores the unborn human's right to life, which bodily autonomy doesn't supersede.

This is where you fail your argument. A fetus doesn't have a right to life prior to 24 weeks. If it can survive past that, then sure, it might have a right to life. That is unless it will kill the mother or has some sort of birth defect that will make it useless to take it to term. There is no 'right to life'. Otherwise we wouldn't have abortion at all.

Before 24 weeks, bodily autonomy of the mother supersedes the bodily autonomy of the fetus. You cannot change that, or we can start forced harvesting of extra organs from people that don't need them to give them to people that do need them. If you say that isn't the same thing, then your argument fails.

[Thresh1]

That's a religious belief.

No it's not, lol. Unless you think that all positions on human rights are inherently "religious." Which in that case, I could say the same thing about your position, making your comment meaningless.

"Bodily Integrity

Some pro-choicers sidestep the above premises entirely by basing their position solely on a strict adherence to the value of bodily integrity or autonomy. Secular Pro-Life agrees that bodily autonomy is an important value. However, it is not absolute.

The overwhelming majority of pregnancies occur as a result of consensual sex. It is unjust to deny an unborn child's right to life in favor of a bodily autonomy right that could have been vindicated earlier, and without violence, through the practice of abstinence or contraception.

It is also worth noting that bodily autonomy is essentially an after-the-fact rationalization; women do not actually have abortions in order to preserve their bodily autonomy. Research has consistently shown that women have abortions primarily for socio-economic reasons."

- Secular Pro Life

[Orbitus]

No it's not, lol. Unless you think that all positions on human rights are inherently "religious." Which in that case, I could say the same thing about your position, making your comment meaningless.

"Bodily Integrity

Some pro-choicers sidestep the above premises entirely by basing their position solely on a strict adherence to the value of bodily integrity or autonomy. Secular Pro-Life agrees that bodily autonomy is an important value. However, it is not absolute.

The overwhelming majority of pregnancies occur as a result of consensual sex. It is unjust to deny an unborn child's right to life in favor of a bodily autonomy right that could have been vindicated earlier, and without violence, through the practice of abstinence or contraception.

It is also worth noting that bodily autonomy is essentially an after-the-fact rationalization; women do not actually have abortions in order to preserve their bodily autonomy. Research has consistently shown that women have abortions primarily for socio-economic reasons."

- Secular Pro Life

You keep saying this shit but it isn't true. It is called FETUS. Can you say fetus? I know you can. Say it with me, FETUS.

While abstinence is the only form of contraception that is 100%, that can also destroy relationships with withholding sex. And again, ALL forms of contraception, besides abstinence, have failure rates. Even if you use multiple forms of contraception, that doesn't stop the fact that you can still get pregnant.

Linking that bullshit blog, doesn't stop the fact that people still have bodily autonomy. Again the analogy that forced organ harvesting would be a thing if it could save lives if you took away abortion. It could be argued that your kidney could save someone like the president since you have the same blood type and whatnot. So, be careful what you argue for. You might be sealing your own loss of bodily autonomy by arguing for fetal rights.

[Captain N]

While abstinence is the only form of contraception that is 100%, that can also destroy relationships with withholding sex.

Well there's an entire religion based on a theory of it being otherwise.

[Shadowferal]

No it's not, lol. Unless you think that all positions on human rights are inherently "religious."

You're "argument" is still the same.

I'm a Roman Catholic
And have been since before I was born
And the one thing they say about Catholics is
They'll take you as soon as you're warm

You don't have to be a six-footer
You don't have to have a great brain
You don't have to have any clothes on you're
A Catholic the moment Dad came

Because every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate

[Orbitus]

Well there's an entire religion based on a theory of it being otherwise.

Yep, and that religion is usually the reason these anti-abortionists want abortion outlawed. Even though if you thumb through the Bible, abortion is advocated for from their "god".

[Orbitus]

Sweety, i dont need to insult you. You do it far better than I could every time you open your mouth

That usually happens when people don't know what they are talking about but adamant about their position. They try to spin and warp definitions and reality to suit their needs.

[Zeth Hawkins]

You keep saying this shit but it isn't true. It is called FETUS. Can you say fetus? I know you can. Say it with me, FETUS.

While abstinence is the only form of contraception that is 100%, that can also destroy relationships with withholding sex. And again, ALL forms of contraception, besides abstinence, have failure rates. Even if you use multiple forms of contraception, that doesn't stop the fact that you can still get pregnant.

Linking that bullshit blog, doesn't stop the fact that people still have bodily autonomy. Again the analogy that forced organ harvesting would be a thing if it could save lives if you took away abortion. It could be argued that your kidney could save someone like the president since you have the same blood type and whatnot. So, be careful what you argue for. You might be sealing your own loss of bodily autonomy by arguing for fetal rights.

Oh boy, where to start? When it's born, it's a child. When it's yet to be born (unborn), it's an...

If abstinence destroys a given relationship, that speaks only to the weakness of the relationship. And so what if contraception options aren't absolutely effective? Failure of contraceptives does not somehow negate the unborn child's (le gasp) right to life.

I knocked down the "organ harvesting" analogy a few pages back when a mod brought it up, but I'll do so again now. Your analogy does not take into account that the mother willingly forfeited her bodily autonomy to the unborn child (trois!). The organ thing would look more like this:
-You give someone your kidney
-You decide you want your kidney back
-Person dies

Yep, and that religion is usually the reason these anti-abortionists want abortion outlawed. Even though if you thumb through the Bible, abortion is advocated for from their "god".

<--Atheist against abortion

Sweety, i dont need to insult you. You do it far better than I could every time you open your mouth

Come now, if you're going to insult me, you could at least think about what you're typing. That one only works when speaking to someone verbally. Can't say I've ever opened my mouth to you.

And while I appreciate being called sweety, I don't swing that way (assuming you're a guy).

That usually happens when people don't know what they are talking about but adamant about their position. They try to spin and warp definitions and reality to suit their needs.

In my experience, the adamant and uninformed usually resort to personal attacks in lieu of coherent discourse.

[PosPosPos]

I knocked down the "organ harvesting" analogy a few pages back when a mod brought it up, but I'll do so again now. Your analogy does not take into account that the mother willingly forfeited her bodily autonomy to the unborn child (trois!). The organ thing would look more like this:
-You give someone your kidney
-You decide you want your kidney back
-Person dies

As if one couldn't just go to an underground abortion clinic, and just pretend she was never pregnant all along.

One does not "willingly forfeited her bodily autonomy" to the unborn fetus. A non-human being is a non-human being.

- - - Updated - - -

In my experience, the adamant and uninformed usually resort to personal attacks in lieu of coherent discourse.

Except you seem to have not engaged in coherent discourse to begin with, so this statement doesn't really apply.

[Total Crica]

the mother willingly forfeited her bodily autonomy to the unborn child

Not unless she allows it to remain in her womb.

[XangXu]

Why do we even still have abortion when we have things like

Education
Condoms
Birth Control
The Morning After Pill
Getting your tubes tied
Whatever that female condom thing is..


Look i'm all for women doing whatever they want, but when it comes to abortion, especially these days, it just seems like laziness and irresponsibility.

I'm sorry, unless the pregnancy was under circumstances that weren't preventable, I think abortion SHOULD be illegal. Also i'm a dirty liberal atheist.

Have as much sex as you want without the risk of getting pregnant (or at least very little). That's the joy of living in 2016.

We don't need to be killing babies when it becomes inconvenient any more.