Ryusei the Morning Star Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/12/07/ohio-politics-now-will-john-kasich-sign-heartbeat-bill.html I support the measure, obviously. IMHO, abortion is the greatest willing crime America engages in. But the problem is the logic behind the law is flawed. Trump is very pro-life. Fair. His Justice will be very pro-life, Fair. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Woman's_Health_v._Hellerstedt This case was settled 5-3 in he favor of abortionists, Justice Kennedy will likely support Abortion once again, so even with President Trump's justice, it would be a 5-4 decision in favor of Abortion While I am overjoyed to see the legislation, it seems like wasted political capital till President Trump can replace another Judge http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/16/donald-trump-abortion-supreme-court-roe-wade-vacancy/93793206/ Pretty good piece on why it might take a bit longer that I would like for that particular promise to come true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 Most abortions occur before 6 weeks. This is fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted December 8, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 Most abortions occur before 6 weeks. This is fine.I would have supported an additional restriction on an exception for Rape (since they already have mother's health in place), but it's w/e If you're raped, I don't think it's too much to look into the matter before 6 weeks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Jesse Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 Disgusting. I'd be willing to bet that this law will actually increase abortion rates, because on-the-fence would-be parents will have less time to make their decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 I have mixed feelings. I'm against abortion on principle but it's a very nuanced issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted December 8, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 Disgusting. I'd be willing to bet that this law will actually increase abortion rates, because on-the-fence would-be parents will have less time to make their decision.Kasich also defunded planned parenthood :) So better luck next time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 Interesting how men are still the ones dictating what women should do with their own bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epicmemesbro Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 I am generally pro-life (rape exceptions, mother's life in danger yadayadayada) but if I was pressed to support abortion due to viewing it as a bargaining chip I would say 4 weeks at most. By then women would be well aware that they are pregnant and those that didn't suspect a thing would be feeling the effects of pregnancy. 6 weeks is kind of pushing it for me but at least there is a growing support for shortening the time someone could get one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 I don't see why it can't just remain First Trimester if you aren't banning it outright. Because if you are going to draw an arbitrary line for the issue, it's better to have one that both generous, and fairly inflexible. Generous because this is always going to be a complicated issue, one that should require immense amount of thought and consideration before undergoing and forcing a limited time constraint on that is fairly horrible. And inflexible because of people's objection to the issue, so you end up taking a hard stance about the things which are debtable for a pro-choice standpoint. The first heartbeat is as a sign of 'life', which I assume is the justification here, is no more concrete than the first trimester. Because you still have this issue of 'when is a baby alive'. And it continues to ignore the issue of respective rights; Just as much as the baby has a right to life, the mother should have the right to liberty over her own body. It is what is is in essence; a complicated issue that will remain complicated for a long while yet. I will remain in favour of abortion being a legal and readily available service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Jesse Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 My personal view is that the cutoff point is when a fetus can feel pain, although the life of the mother takes precedence no matter what stage. I also think a rape child is entirely irrelevant to the timeframe and only good as a litmus test for how much of an jabroni you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted December 8, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 Interesting how men are still the ones dictating what women should do with their own bodies.Interesting how being a women gives you rights to commit murder A heartbeat is clear evidence of human qualities. It's a clear distinction from where a zygote is an clump of cells Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 But it's not a clear distinction of life as a moral and philsophical concept. Which is where the murder argument arises from. Biological function alone would not be a definition of life there, because technically the zygote has biological function from the instant it exists. Likewise the child having a heartbeat does not mean it can function on it's own, which would be another potential definition of life that could be ground in science. It still lacks significant organ function, including I think an ability to breathe through it's own lungs (Not to sure on that). The distinction of 'where does life begin' and 'when does the rights of the baby outweight the rights of the child' are not answered by the presence of a heartbeat, because a heartbeat alone is not proof of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Jesse Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 Likewise the child having a heartbeat does not mean it can function on it's own, which would be another potential definition of life that could be ground in science. It still lacks significant organ function, including I think an ability to breathe through it's own lungs (Not to sure on that). There are plenty of forms of life that can't properly function on their own, though. Like tapeworms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 There are plenty of forms of life that can't properly function on their own, though. Like tapeworms. True. But at that point you reduce the fetus to being a parasite, which changes the standard of respect we give it's life. I suppose we can redefine it to being 'what we class as life for humanity' but then my initial point comes back around. I just think that trying to define a specific point at which a child is alive pre birth is iffy. It's part of the reason you get scaling abortion laws, because you can't fully prove 'life' until it is born, which makes giving it rights complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Jesse Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 True. But at that point you reduce the fetus to being a parasite, which changes the standard of respect we give it's life.I mean, here's a thought experiment: How does a fetus not fit the definition of a parasite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted December 8, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 I mean, here's a thought experiment: How does a fetus not fit the definition of a parasite?Most Parasites can't become a human if you give them an ideal growth environments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Jesse Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 You know what isn't an ideal growth environment? A household where it's unwanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 My argument for the 'feutus=parasite' would be similar. The only difference it really has beyond eventually maturing into a human is the moral connection we have with them due to being of out speciies. To the best of my knowledge (Which is bad because I'm a Physicst in training, not a biologist), biologically speaking they are fairly similar. The counter argument then will be 'give it up for adoption, don't kill it'. Which in turn ignores the fact that simply bringing a child to term is expensive and time consuming, even if you don't have to raise it. Which means that one way or the other the mother has to surrender her liberity against her will in some cases for the sake of something whose rights are not fully defined. Which is again, part of the reason the issue is complex. I would also like to propose the idea that nobody, even people in favour of abortion being legal, actually like it as a choice. It's not a pleasant decision to come to ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 Which is why it's unintelligent dangerous to reduce the issue to "stop trying to tell women what they can do with their vaginas, it's just a funking parasite." OR "The liberals want to kill all the babies." This is not an easy issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted December 8, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 You have 6 weeks, a pack of 4 pregnancy tests measures is $6. If you have sex, get it checked up. It's not that difficult. Condoms are free. If you're raped, get it checked up. Mother's health is still an exception under the current law.You know what isn't an ideal growth environment? A household where it's unwanted.Good thing VP Elect Pence has also talked about streaming lining the adoption system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 I would also like to propose the idea that nobody, even people in favour of abortion being legal, actually like it as a choice. It's not a pleasant decision to come to ever.Gonna have to disagree there. There are a wide range of opinions out there. A lot of people do not give a funk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 And you think the decesion is easy to come to? Imagine if someone does only find out when they are late? When that 6 weeks is cut down to three say? Or less? Then you force the decision to be rushed, the discussion you may have, the inner turmoil you work through. It will work both ways; you'll get kids being aborted that the parents then decided they wanted, just as you'll get kids being born who they wish could have been prevented. It's an incredibly emotional time, and process and shouldn't be rushed. Like if you are fine with having people have time to come to a decision on this kind of issue in this case, and we've established that a heartbeat is not an indication of to the extent that it becomes inhumanae to do (More so than you think may be attached to the action at any point), then why can't the deadline follow the old 'till the end of the first trimester'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted December 8, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 Gonna have to disagree there. There are a wide range of opinions out there. A lot of people do not give a funk.Seconded, a lot of people are very callous about the matter because it's convenient for them. That's honestly what's sick about it. Abortion has become a common method of irresponsible contraception And you think the decesion is easy to come to?yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epicmemesbro Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 Pretty much what Winter said. Many women use abortion as an "easy way out" of an ensuing reckless behavior or lifestyle. By enabling this type of behavior we are opening the gateway for a society where doing things that should be considered a dire last resort would become something as indifferent as washing your car. And that could lead to a more grave outcome. Interesting how men are still the ones dictating what women should do with their own bodies.I feel compelled to respond to this however I feel if I give the "big picture sense" of what I think should be viewed as preferred (in my eyes) in a society, the discussion could be derailed. So to avoid such thing from occurring I will respond with a shorter answer, that being: They should (they by which I mean male pro-life politicians) as they are the "last stand" against abortion. (note: most women are pro-choice). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 Empathy Winter is a wonderful quality, one I wish you could embrace a little more. I understand that for you, someone who disagrees with the idea of abortion would find the choice easy to come to. But that excersize here is to think about it from other points of views, where people will debate, and agonise and weigh up the decision. And then the shame of going through with it, and the guilt attached with it. Whilst yes, there are callous arseholes out there who probably will have an abortion regardless (I still disagree that anyone will ever have an abortion for the fun of having one unless they are wrong in the head, which is more the point I was going after), I will stand by the statement that's it's not an easy choice to make and to go through, because there is a moral component there of 'killing a child' And I will always maintain that, because I've (And this is one of the few times I'll actually bring my personal history up in debates) have had to go through with that decision and that dilema. And it wasn't funking easy, and it wasn't pleasant, but it had to be done because of the circumstances surrounding it and because neither I nor the other party involved were in a position to bring the child to term. Which is why I am pro-choice - Even if I did have a moral opposition to abortion, I can disregard that and accept that it is arguably a nessecitity to how modern society functions given that mistakes happen, and things aren't so cut and dry as to dismiss the issue out of hand. A lot of the issues people have with the reckless behavoir people associate with abortions can be mitigated through other means, the foremost of which is comphrehensive sexual education and ready access to contraceptives. (A personal side note, anyone who is pro-life and not for these sorts of things in return is just a funking moron in my book. You need to do some of these things to deal with the inevitability that people are going to funk. You have to be prepared for that behavoir). Sorry to take things on a personal tangent, but I am just more than a little annoyed with people breaking the issue down to be something simple when it's not. I would love for people to understand that a little more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.