Ohio passes 'heartbeat' abortion bill

[Total Crica]

Don't give two flipping dolphin dungs. I don't have to be a woman just to oppose child murder. I know plenty of women who think exactly the same about the issue. Why should being a male discredit me in regards to this subject of discussion?

Oppose it all you want. I will abort my unwanted pregnancies regardless.

[Acidbaron]

I've stated my response numerous times. You've simply ignored it and repeated the same shit.

All you gave me is, "the left simply claims it's a woman's right" that is not example of how the left is shutting down the conversation or even boycotting it and even if it is, that is minor compared the list of examples i provided where your right not only ignores the debate but contributes to unwanted pregnancies.

Also nice to know you decided to ignore the rest of my post, guess it's easier to ignore truths when confronted with them. The spineless right of the USA, all bluff no substance.

[spinner981]

Actually it does, up to a certain point and after that point the only way they can get an abortion then, is in the health of the mother or the fetus. Say the fetus doesn't have a brain at 30 weeks, when it already should have one formed. Are you going to force the mother to carry it to term even though it will not live? Then you are an asshole if you do want to force it.

I don't think you are understanding the context of what we were discussing. They insisted that they should have the right to do whatever they want just because they say it is ok. I am explaining why that is wrong.

Sure it does. Wtf you going to do about it?

Like I said, I'm not the president so I can't outlaw it. Luckily we have someone in office right now who can afford rubbing two brain cells together to realize that it is wrong. Like I said, I can't stop you from being a selfish murderer unfortunately

But this isn't about you specifically. It's about stopping the massive amount of child homicides that take place on a yearly basis. The first step to doing that is outlawing it. After that then we can work on hopefully doing someone about all the people who insist on murdering their children anyway.

Oppose it all you want. I will abort regardless.

Like I said, it's not my fault your a selfish murderer (if you are being honest and aren't just trolling, which is a possibility), and I am not in a position to stop you. But hopefully someday the police will be.

[Mizix]

Yes, I'm aware.

Then you're not pro-choice, since a six week ban leaves no actual time to make any choice.

[Thrive]

All you gave me is, "the left simply claims it's a woman's right" that is not example of how the left is shutting down the conversation or even boycotting it and even if it is, that is minor compared the list of examples i provided where your right not only ignores the debate but contributes to unwanted pregnancies.

Also nice to know you decided to ignore the rest of my post, guess it's easier to ignore truths when confronted with them. The spineless right of the USA, all bluff no substance.

Said the man ignoring the entirety of my posts and cherry picking the ones he wants.

[Dr Assbandit]

Don't give two flipping dolphin dungs. I don't have to be a woman just to oppose child murder. I know plenty of women who think exactly the same about the issue. Why should being a male discredit me in regards to this subject of discussion?

It's not only being a male that discredits your opinion, going back through your comments it's easy to see a massive fallacy with appeals to emotion by continually referring to fetuses as "children".

Your arguments are based off of biased thinking points made popular by religious morality, not based on neutral facts.

[Orbitus]

The difference is you make a choice to have sex and risk a baby, I don't have a responsibility to other people.
I'll ask you again, and I'll ask you not to dodge. In a case of consensual sex, if a woman becomes pregnant, and in this hypothetical it is indeed a life, should it be okay to abort it? Not let it it die through inaction, mind you, but actively kill it.

Guess you never have urges to have sex? Even with the pill, condoms, and whatever else they use, there is ALWAYS a chance all of the contraception can fail. And yes, I think it should be ok to abort it. It is not any of your business whether or not a woman has an abortion or not.

You do realize your shitty argument can be used against you right? Again my analogy comes into play, say Obama needs a kidney and you are the only one in the US that has the same blood type and genetic markers, can we hold you down, force surgery on you, to harvest your kidney because it could save his life? I know you hate Obama as I have seen in other threads. If you say no, then you CANNOT continue this discussion and decide if a woman can have an abortion or not.

[Total Crica]

I can't stop you

You can't stop any woman who wishes to abort their unwanted pregnancies. That was what I said from the get go. Wtf you going to do about it? Nothing. Because you can't. All you CAN do is bitch about an issue you can't control.

[Orbitus]

I don't think you are understanding the context of what we were discussing. They insisted that they should have the right to do whatever they want just because they say it is ok. I am explaining why that is wrong.

The only one wrong here is you. My analogy is sound and so is HomeHoney's. It is their body, they can do with it what they want, to a certain point. As long as they aren't harming anyone else, they have pretty much free reign.

- - - Updated - - -

You can't stop any woman who wishes to abort their unwanted children. That was what I said from the get go. wtf you going to do about it? Nothing. Because you can't.

Don't mind spinner, he is about 90% wrong any time he posts.

[Acidbaron]

Said the man ignoring the entirety of my posts and cherry picking the ones he wants.

I have continued to comment on all key points of your posts till you decided to play an ostrich and i don't participate in merry-go-round debates also.

[spinner981]

It's not only being a male that discredits your opinion, going back through your comments it's easy to see a massive fallacy with appeals to emotion by continually referring to fetuses as "children".

Your arguments are based off of biased thinking points made popular by religious morality, not based on neutral facts.

Where did I mention religion? Explain to me the objective scientific point at which a human becomes a person. I am merely not being arbitrary nor subjective in my thinking. If you are a person when born, you are a person before being born too. I'm not drawing any lines here, the pro-choice advocates are, so it is on them to justify their own line drawing, unless they want to argue that murdering any human is ok and that no humans are human persons. So let's hear it: objective scientific definition of person-hood.

[Captain N]

Don't mind spinner, he is about 90% wrong any time he posts.

I need to find the post he made a year or so ago and said that a husband can't rape his wife because she needs to be subservient to him.

[spinner981]

The only one wrong here is you. My analogy is sound and so is HomeHoney's. It is their body, they can do with it what they want, to a certain point. As long as they aren't harming anyone else, they have pretty much free reign.

Except it isn't their body. It is the child's body. What scientific evidence do you have to present to show that before birth the unborn child/fetus is considered to be the same person as the woman?

Don't mind spinner, I disagree with about 90% of his wonderfully intellectual and logically sound posts.

Fixed.

I need to find the post he made a year or so ago and said that a husband can't rape his wife because she needs to be subservient to him.

I don't recall ever saying that. Please, drag it up. If you can't then please cease the mud flinging.

[Total Crica]

if you are being honest and aren't just trolling

Quite honest. I don't want to be pregnant nor raise any kids. I could become pregnant from having protected sex with my husband. I will abort if that happens. I may consider carrying to term for the right price and conditions. Not trolling at all.

[Thrive]

Guess you never have urges to have sex? Even with the pill, condoms, and whatever else they use, there is ALWAYS a chance all of the contraception can fail. And yes, I think it should be ok to abort it. It is not any of your business whether or not a woman has an abortion or not.

You do realize your shitty argument can be used against you right? Again my analogy comes into play, say Obama needs a kidney and you are the only one in the US that has the same blood type and genetic markers, can we hold you down, force surgery on you, to harvest your kidney because it could save his life? I know you hate Obama as I have seen in other threads. If you say no, then you CANNOT continue this discussion and decide if a woman can have an abortion or not.

If you don't feel comfortable answering the question, then don't. I have urges to do a lot of things, and I take responsibility for my actions. If you truly think its a life, then it's not crazy or wrong to say that killing a baby that came from your own personal choice is wrong.
Again, legally I support abortion, I just think that people like to dodge the issues because it's a difficult conversation.
Now in this analogy, am I responsible for his needing of a kidney? Did I make a choice that forced him to need a kidney? Did I actively force him to need a kidney? Then how the fuck is it even similar?
You can easily use protection, and in 99.9% of the cases it works. You can easily put the child up for adoption, and 99.9% of the chance they will find a home. And if there is a medical danger on the women, I morally agree abortion should be legal. But that was not the hypothetical I put forward.
Again, legally I support abortion, but morally I never could. You can call me a religious nutjob, even though I'm not even religious, all you want, I don't give a shit. To me it isn't based on religion, or the soul. It's based on how we describe a person. At what point does something become sentient? And in the case that it is sentient, then to me it is murder.
Disagree all you want, I don't really give a shit.

- - - Updated - - -

I have continued to comment on all key points of your posts till you decided to play an ostrich and i don't participate in merry-go-round debates also.

The only people I stopped responding to were you and Home, because I felt both conversations had reached the conclusion.

[Acidbaron]

Where did I mention religion? Explain to me the objective scientific point at which a human becomes a person. I am merely not being arbitrary nor subjective in my thinking. If you are a person when born, you are a person before being born too. I'm not drawing any lines here, the pro-choice advocates are, so it is on them to justify their own line drawing, unless they want to argue that murdering any human is ok and that no humans are human persons. So let's hear it: objective scientific definition of person-hood.

The problem with that question is that you cannot scientifically define term like person-hood. Since person-hood is not a scientific but religious and philosophical term.

I would lend you a shovel but it seems you are digging a hole for yourself just fine in this debate

[Thrive]

The problem with that question is that you cannot scientifically define term like person-hood. Since person-hood is not a scientific but religious and philosophical term.

I would lend you a shovel but it seems you are digging a hole for yourself just fine in this debate

So being a thinking person is not scientific? They have done countless experiments on sentience and self-awareness with animals and people you know.

[spinner981]

The problem with that question is that you cannot scientifically define term like person-hood. Since person-hood is not a scientific but religious and philosophical term.

I would lend you a shovel but it seems you are digging a hole for yourself just fine in this debate

Ok then, if person-hood is a religious term and not a scientific one, then why does it appear within our law? Unless you are suggesting that the general sanctity of human life is religious and not scientifically based. At that point I would be calling into question why you think ANY murder is immoral. Because if what you are saying is true, then from purely a secular perspective, pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike have no leg to stand on because it is all just opinions. That would explain the lack of open-mindedness though.

A pro-choice argument against the person-hood of unborn children might as well be an argument against the person-hood of born children. The only difference would be whether or not the pro-choicer calls it such, or merely gets emotional about it causing their subjective opinions to be 'tainted' by the suggestion of objectivity.

[Total Crica]

Ok then, if person-hood is a religious term and not a scientific one, then why does it appear within our law? Unless you are suggesting that the general sanctity of human life is religious and not scientifically based. At that point I would be calling into question why you think ANY murder is immoral. Because if what you are saying is true, then from purely a secular perspective, pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike have no leg to stand on because it is all just opinions. That would explain the lack of open-mindedness though.

A pro-choice argument against the person-hood of unborn children might as well be an argument against the person-hood of born children. The only difference would be whether or not the pro-choicer calls it such, or merely gets emotional about it causing their subjective opinions to be 'tainted' by the suggestion of objectivity.

There is no wrong or right, only thinking makes it so. (someone's quote)

This applies to all aspects of our perceptions. There is no proof of anything, merely belief/disbelief of what we perceive.

[Acidbaron]

So being a thinking person is not scientific? They have done countless experiments on sentience and self-awareness with animals and people you know.

Again, personhood is not a scientific term therefor it has no place in medical debates. Again remember he's moving towards the scientific side of this debate, it's okay to use personhood in this debate when looking it at from both a religious and philosophical stand point but that's what he is doing, if you read his comment.