Heartbeat-Abortion Bill Ohio

[Tentacruel]

 

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.

This is one thing we can agree on.  Unfortunately a lot of pro-life people (Wouldn't say majority but they exist) are really just pro-birth.  They do not give a funk what happens to the lower-class black kid with a single working mother once he's born.  

 

Pro-choice and pro-life people could come together to help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies (and thus abortions) in general, but a lot of people are too angry about it. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

My empathy is for the child that cannot voice his or her opposition to being murdered, because his or her mother wants an easy out for mistakes self inflicted mistakes.

 

Nobody is there to speak for the child when even it's own parents are eager to sell it out.

 

Edit:

 

Brightfire, it's not easy to raise a kid ever...some people just realize that passing off the known risks to a 3rd party isn't correct solution

 

There's been a virulent and growing need to disregard responsibility, and it's about time someone put their foot down and stopped letting children foot the bill

[Halubaris Maphotika]

I mean, here's a thought experiment:

 

How does a fetus not fit the definition of a parasite?

Does that mean I can kill people on welfare? Because I define them as parasites who suck off of taxpayers money?

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Interesting how being a women gives you rights to commit murder

This argument holds no water until you can give me some kind of logical proof that it is murder.

 

Also from everything I've seen. Abortion is not an "easy" thing for many to do.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This argument holds no water until you can give me some kind of logical proof that it is murder.

 

Also from everything I've seen. Abortion is not an "easy" thing for many to do.

Parasites don't have heartbeats, humans do.

 

For something that's "not easy to do" more than 1/5 of pregnancies result in abortion

 

That's a higher "death" rate than being a ISIS fighter. When my country is better at killing babies than Jihadists, I have a problem with how it's functioning 

[Aerion Brightflame]

But why is the choice to have an abortion not taking responsibility for ones actions? Because it doesn't have immediate (negative) consequences?

 

You make a decision in response to the mistake, and you live with it. That is taking responsibility. It may not fit your definition of it, but it's not running away from the issue until a decision is forced upon you by fate.

 

Likewise you can't make the argument of caring for the child's liberty whilst completely disregarding the mothers when there isn't a legal consesus about how far the child's rights extend without overly simplifying things. Roe vs Wade, even if it is apparently losing favour in America, actually argues this very thing. That the mother's right to liberty over her own body remains even if one can or cannot prove life in the fetus. In part because we can't prove when life begins, and as such we can't give a fetus these rights.

 

There is no single person's rights who win out in that situation.

 

Also f*** off trying to bring ISIS into this issue. Like seriously. I am sorry to go for what is just a personal attack here, but just f*** off with that. ISIS is completely and always will be irrelevant to this discussion. Don't bring them into this to try and peddle a moral standpoint instead of an argument. I will put up with a lot of your tangents in debates, but not that in this.

[Tentacruel]

For funk's sake guys.

 

You can call a fetus a parasite.  You could also call humans animals, because we technically are.  

 

What you call something doesn't mean sheet.

 

This argument holds no water until you can give me some kind of logical proof that it is murder.

 

Also from everything I've seen. Abortion is not an "easy" thing for many to do.

There's no logical proof that murder is morally wrong in the first place.  This is a philosophical debate, not a logical one. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Parasites don't have heartbeats, humans do.

 

There's no logical proof that murder is morally wrong in the first place.  This is a philosophical debate, not a logical one. 

My main issue is the idea that you (Winter) keep just saying "It's murder so it's bad" when most who support it don't see it as murder. So that's going to make it really difficult to actually debate the topic.

I don't see it as murder. I don't see them as people yet. Technically every sperm is a potential child for instance.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

But why is the choice to have an abortion not taking responsibility for ones actions? Because it doesn't have immediate (negative) consequences?

 

You make a decision in response to the mistake, and you live with it. That is taking responsibility. It may not fit your definition of it, but it's not running away from the issue until a decision is forced upon you by fate.

 

Likewise you can't make the argument of caring for the child's liberty whilst completely disregarding the mothers when there isn't a legal consesus about how far the child's rights extend. Roe vs Wade, even if it is apparently losing favour in America, actually argues this very thing. That the mother's right to liberty over her own body remains even if one can or cannot prove life in the fetus. In part because we can't prove when life begins, and as such we can't give a fetus these rights.

 

There is no single person's rights who win out in that situation.

 

Also f*** off trying to bring ISIS into this issue. Like seriously. I am sorry to go for what is just a personal attack here, but just f*** off with that. ISIS is completely and always will be irrelevant to this discussion. Don't bring them into this to try and peddle a moral standpoint instead of an argument. I will put up with a lot of your tangents in debates, but not that in this.

What responsibility? The ~$500 abortion fee? By pro-choice advocates's own account women don't feel traumatized by abortion. 

 

Roe v. Wade? If you read the court briefings on the matter, the lawyer tricked Roe into going for the case, Roe herself is firmly pro-life currently. But that all aside, why makes supreme court decisions so sacred? Roe was a 7-2 decision, the last abortion case was a 5-4

 

The fatality rate of repealing Roe for woman isn't nearly close to the 100% it is for the child by keeping roe. So stop peddling the false equivalence mesure that the rights infringed of the mother (none) are equal to those lost by the child (life)

 

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today

 

Ok? 

 

2014 Rank Occupation Fatal Injuries per 100,000 people 1 Logging workers 110.9 2 Fishers and related fishing workers 80.8 3 Aircraft pilots and flight engineers 64 4 Roofers

47.4

 

None come close to a 1/5 rate of fatality. The closest anything gets to the mortality rate of an American child is in fact an ISIS fighter. You can get all emotional about the comparison, but statistically there's noting wrong with the comparison

I don't see it as murder. I don't see them as people yet. Technically every sperm is a potential child for instance.

I'm glad you brought up this strawman, you can incubate a sperm cell all you want, it's not gonna grow into a human

 

A there is no ideal environment where a sperm-cell can mature into a human being

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I'm glad you brought up this strawman, you can incubate a sperm cell all you want, it's not gonna grow into a human

 

A there is no ideal environment where a sperm-cell can mature into a human being

I'm glad you ignored the rest of my post just to call out a tacked on addition at the end.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm glad you ignored the rest of my post just to call out a tacked on addition at the end.

Shrugs, most slave owners didn't see keeping slaves as racism. It was their natural right over an inferior race. Didn't make the Dred Scott Scotus decision any less racist or vile

 

I just didn't think I needed to spell it out for you to understand that

 

But I'm glad we got that cleared up

 

Edit:

 

Huhn, shocker shocker, Dred Scott v. Sandford too was a 7-2 decision that trampled on (then non-existant equal protection) that while overwhelmingly popular among a bench of un-elected judges wasn't quite so with the American public

[Sunshine Jesse]

Does that mean I can kill people on welfare? Because I define them as parasites who suck off of taxpayers money?

To properly refute this would require a wall of text but to simplify it as much as possible:

 

If someone or something is draining on you without providing any benefit to yourself, you have every right to get rid of them, be it by kicking them out of your house, life, or in this case, womb.

 

It's not killing them because they're parasites, it's getting rid of them because they're harming you.

[a bad post]

First of all, I'd like to preface this by saying that by my own personal beliefs I would never personally get an abortion, and I dislike the idea of abortion. HOWEVER, I will never tell another person what they can and cannot do with their body because it is none of your goddamn business quite frankly. I may not personally like it, but I will fight tooth and nail for women to be able to have abortions.

 

Honestly if you vagina police boys would actually do your research you'd find that in places where abortion is readily available and cheap the abortion rate is actually lower. This has nothing to do with people using it as an "easy way out". That's a convenient argument, and to be quite frank you have no factual evidence for it. 

[Aerion Brightflame]

Responsibility is more than just taking care of others, or dealing with the consequences of ones actions. It includes making decisions that affect your future for yourself without letting the choice get made for you. They take responsibility for there own decision. It is a valid definition of responsibility that choosing to have an abortion falls over.

 

I didn't call Roe vs Wade sacred; I simply refereced the fact that it is a legal precident that (For at least some of the pregnancy) places the mothers right to liberty over her own body above the theoretical rights of her child. It uses the example of forced donations to make this statement; stating that the womans right to control her body is not surpassed by someone elses right to live. Which also makes it not a false equivilance, it is in fact the most apt legal comparison I can make here because it is the literal basis of my argument. We all have a right to control what happens to our own body. Preventing a woman from having an abortion is she desires one is technical a violation of this, so you can't say that no rights are infringed. You can disagree with the relative severity of the rights, but not the existance of the rights on both sides of the argument.

 

The entire point of the Supreme Court isn't to make it's decisions sacred but to deal with complex issues that usually deal with setting legal precidents. Which is something that has to be taken it careful consideration every time.

 

But the ISIS argument is entirely emotional. You are trying to generate outrage by saying more babies are killed than terrorists. The actual numerics of that should be irrelevant unless you are trying touch upon the emotional argument. Because they are two unrelated death statistics. The specific choice to make an ISIS comparison makes it emotional regardless of it's statistical merit. If you wanted to make an accurate stastical comparison to make your point that is non emotional, compare child mortality rates between the US and non developed nations. It would suit your argument more.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm not defending the government making it hard for young parents? Never have, never will. I agree with the democratic critque that the GOP only cares about the life of the child until it's out of the womb, which is why I enthusiastically supported both President Elect Trump, and Senator Sander's plan to give generous maternity leave to mothers to lessen the financial burden of child bearing as well as VP Elect pence's initiative to make adoption more efficient so children could actually end up with families that wanted them

 

 

I'm willing to walk the whole mile to support the right to life, neither the old GOP nor the dems are

[Tentacruel]

 

 

Honestly if you vagina police boys would actually do your research you'd find that in places where abortion is readily available and cheap the abortion rate is actually lower. This has nothing to do with people using it as an "easy way out". That's a convenient argument, and to be quite frank you have no factual evidence for it. 

Just like how pro-choice advocates do not view abortion as murder, pro-life advocates do not view a fetus as a part of a woman's body, but a separate entity. 

 

Using phrases like vagina police makes you funking retarded.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Shrugs, most slave owners didn't see keeping slaves as racism. It was their natural right over an inferior race. Didn't make the Dred Scott Scotus decision any less racist or vile

 

I just didn't think I needed to spell it out for you to understand that

 

But I'm glad we got that cleared up

 

Edit:

 

Huhn, shocker shocker, Dred Scott v. Sandford too was a 7-2 decision that trampled on (then non-existant equal protection) that while overwhelmingly popular among a bench of un-elected judges wasn't quite so with the American public

You spelt nothing out for me and I understand what you're trying to say just fine. I just think you're wrong. You're basically using the argument of "People don't think it's bad but people have been wrong so clearly I'm right"

[Dad]

Just like how pro-choice advocates do not view abortion as murder, pro-life advocates do not view a fetus as a part of a woman's body, but a separate entity. 

 

Using phrases like vagina police makes you funking retarded.

 

Unnecessary.  Cool off a bit and don't get heated, please.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

First of all, I'd like to preface this by saying that by my own personal beliefs I would never personally get an abortion, and I dislike the idea of abortion. HOWEVER, I will never tell another person what they can and cannot do with their body because it is none of your goddamn business quite frankly. I may not personally like it, but I will fight tooth and nail for women to be able to have abortions.

 

Honestly if you vagina police boys would actually do your research you'd find that in places where abortion is readily available and cheap the abortion rate is actually lower. This has nothing to do with people using it as an "easy way out". That's a convenient argument, and to be quite frank you have no factual evidence for it. 

This bolded part is actually true sadly, but that's because as the democrats rightly point out, the GOP does nothing to make the financial responsibility for parents less taxing.

 

I'd have to look up the figures again, but a majority of abortions aren't done for rape or that sort, but rather because the parents simply cannot financially deal with the stress of having a child. Parentage should be prized, not financially shackled. Just because our government is flawed in not supporting parents, doesn't mean the solution is to kill children. The solution is to 1) advocate safer sex to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and then 2) be more forthcoming with aid to parents to promote a lesser desire/necessity for abortion

 

Easy way is maybe a tad callous, it's realistically the only way based on how the gov currently works

You spelt nothing out for me and I understand what you're trying to say just fine. I just think you're wrong. You're basically using the argument of "People don't think it's bad but people have been wrong so clearly I'm right"

???

 

No, I'm saying just because people getting abortion don't see it as murder, doesn't make it not so?

 

Just like slaver owners having slaves didn't see it as inhumane or racist, it was just the natural way of life?

 

Both these views were validated by 7-2 SCOTUS decisions 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

???

 

No, I'm saying just because people getting abortion don't see it as murder, doesn't make it not so?

 

Just like slaver owners having slaves didn't see it as inhumane or racist, it was just the natural way of life?

 

Both these views were validated by 7-2 SCOTUS decisions 

You're connecting the two in a clear attempt to say that they are similar. But they are not. They are two separate issues.

I wanted to know reasoning for saying it's murder and this is what you decided to focus on.

If you're going to accuse someone of murder you're going to need more than "Well I mean it could be"

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You're connecting the two in a clear attempt to say that they are similar. But they are not. They are two separate issues.

I wanted to know reasoning for saying it's murder and this is what you decided to focus on.

If you're going to accuse someone of murder you're going to need more than "Well I mean it could be"

I'm connecting the two to highlight the clear point that someone engaging in a behavior, and that person then saying said behavior is correct or justified, doesn't necessarily make it so, as you implied with your people getting abortions don't see it as murder comment

 

 

6 weeks is state 17, which is distinctively Human.

 

Also Jesse, studies show that fetuses can feel plain as early as 8 weeks

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I'm connecting the two to highlight the clear point that someone engaging in a behavior, and that person then saying said behavior is correct or justified, doesn't necessarily make it so, as you implied with your people getting abortions don't see it as murder comment

So basically we're going nowhere because literally all I have to say is "And vice verse". This is why I wanted to get reasoning for your side, not reasoning why the other side MIGHT not be right.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So basically we're going nowhere because literally all I have to say is "And vice verse". This is why I wanted to get reasoning for your side, not reasoning why the other side MIGHT not be right.

Sure, I'm just confused why I should allow your logically unsound claims to pass when you're waging a status war decrying my "illogical leaps"

 

Why is it murder? Because at that point a fetus has the same level of function as person on life support. A beating heart that will continue to beat given a supportive environment. Limited brain capability, but a reasonable rate of improvement on that regard.

 

You're not viable at that point in time, because the machine is keeping you alive. Again the bottom line is that if you are defining whether something is a life or not based on your own convenience, that is the nature of evil.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Sure, I'm just confused why I should allow your logically unsound claims to pass when you're waging a status war decrying my "illogical leaps"

 

Why is it murder? Because at that point a fetus has the same level of function as person on life support. A beating heart that will continue to beat given a supportive environment. Limited brain capability, but a reasonable rate of improvement on that regard.

 

You're not viable at that point in time, because the machine is keeping you alive. Again the bottom line is that if you are defining whether something is a life or not based on your own convenience, that is the nature of evil.

It isn't logically unsound to say that people who are Pro-Choice don't think of it as murder. I didn't use it to justify it. I used it to say why it's difficult to argue when you keep saying "It's murder and that's why it's wrong". My logic was sound for what I was saying.

 

Also keep outside things...outside, please, that is a different subject (also I am not waging a war, don't exaggerate)

 

And to be fair the status of someone at that level of life support is also contested if it's truly living. What IS living? You're defining whether something is a life or not as well, you know.

This is the issue with this "debate". It all hinges on a personal belief of what is living or not.

[Tentacruel]

Can you all see how pointless this debate is?  You can't even agree what you're arguing about.