Ohio heartbeat law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If fertilized embryo is a person bye bye IVF.

This would make an incredible sci-fi movie plot... Alt Right government takes over all IVF clinics and orders EVERY SINGLE FROZEN EMBRYO brought to life using surrogates. These children are raised in a government-military esq compound and used as weapons for the alt right as "savior babies".

Seriously, this is relevant. If people really want to base a "right to life" on "being a person" AND hold that an embryo is a person, then those frozen embryos have exactly as much right to life.

No, they don't. As any reasonable person with an understanding of basic biology (not many people in this discussion, unfortunately) knows, it takes three things to create life: A sperm, an Egg and a Host in which to grow the life. "Frozen Embryos" do not have a host to give them life.

It also takes brain functioning and ability to live OUTSIDE the host to be a person. A heartbeat alone is not "life" as if it were a fully developed human.

And, I would be absolutely disgusted if RvW was overturned. There is a thing called Stare Decisis. To just overturn 40 years of law -and abortion isn't the only privacy right at stake here- because some judgmental old men disagree with abortion is vile. Abortions will still happen. I'm not worried about me or my family. But, these red states that already have mostly made it impossibly to get abortions and birth control? Things will only nose dive there on that front. If it weren't for the innocent children who will be thrust on parents who maybe didn't want them, I'd say let them stay in the nests they've fouled and move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with letting each state decide whether abortion should be legal in their state?

because it's a fundamental, federal, constitutional right.

are you aware of the definition of "fundamental"?

Are you going to whip out your dictionary again?

that wasn't me, but apparently you think an abortion is a "fundamental" right. And you would be at odds with the meaning of the term "fundamental".

Control over your own body is a right. Abortion falls under that the same as prescription drugs, surgery, weight loss, etc. The government should no more be able to dictate whether you can end a pregnancy than it should be able to tell you if you can take Synthroid.

Does this mean you're against single-payer then?

You seem to be backing away from it being a "fundamental" right, btw. Did you come to realize what that means?

You don't understand single-payer. But that's no surprise.

Oooooo I'll bite!

So, single-payer health care isn't ran or controlled by the government? It's private?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with letting each state decide whether abortion should be legal in their state?

because it's a fundamental, federal, constitutional right.

are you aware of the definition of "fundamental"?

Are you going to whip out your dictionary again?

that wasn't me, but apparently you think an abortion is a "fundamental" right. And you would be at odds with the meaning of the term "fundamental".

Control over your own body is a right. Abortion falls under that the same as prescription drugs, surgery, weight loss, etc. The government should no more be able to dictate whether you can end a pregnancy than it should be able to tell you if you can take Synthroid.

Does this mean you're against single-payer then?

You seem to be backing away from it being a "fundamental" right, btw. Did you come to realize what that means?

You don't understand single-payer. But that's no surprise.

Yes, thank you. I was just about to post this. This is NOT what a single payer is. And, to further the point, I have my one competitively purchased "regular" insurance, that likes to dictate what I receive already. Dr. prescribes 6 PT sessions for a conditions; insurance company says I should only have 3 and won't cover anything else. So, yeah, this is not "single payer" territory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with letting each state decide whether abortion should be legal in their state?

because it's a fundamental, federal, constitutional right.

are you aware of the definition of "fundamental"?

Are you going to whip out your dictionary again?

that wasn't me, but apparently you think an abortion is a "fundamental" right. And you would be at odds with the meaning of the term "fundamental".

Control over your own body is a right. Abortion falls under that the same as prescription drugs, surgery, weight loss, etc. The government should no more be able to dictate whether you can end a pregnancy than it should be able to tell you if you can take Synthroid.

Does this mean you're against single-payer then?

You seem to be backing away from it being a "fundamental" right, btw. Did you come to realize what that means?

You don't understand single-payer. But that's no surprise.

Oooooo I'll bite!

So, single-payer health care isn't ran or controlled by the government? It's private? [/quote/]
NP. Single payer means the government pays for your healthcare, not that it tells you what you must do with your body. You still go to a doctor, that doctor provides his/her advice and you are then free to make whatever decision you want about you body. Even with single payer, there would be plenty of doctors who choose not to participate, so you would still be able to go to see a doctor not participating in single payer just like you can in other single payer countries.

[Anonymous]

If a woman who is 8 weeks pregnant goes ice skating way too fast and has a hard fall and a miscarriage is she going to be prosecuted for manslaughter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a woman who is 8 weeks pregnant goes ice skating way too fast and has a hard fall and a miscarriage is she going to be prosecuted for manslaughter?

In the anti-choice wet dream world she will be.

They have already prosecuted and locked up women for having miscarriages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you aren't "terminating" a life, what exactly are you terminating?

PP, it's terminating living tissue.

Is it material that has the potential to develop into a human? Yes.

Is it a "person" with the rights and protections afforded under the Constitution? No.

We don't protect human tissue and give it rights under the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with letting each state decide whether abortion should be legal in their state?

because it's a fundamental, federal, constitutional right.

are you aware of the definition of "fundamental"?

Are you going to whip out your dictionary again?

that wasn't me, but apparently you think an abortion is a "fundamental" right. And you would be at odds with the meaning of the term "fundamental".

Ok, I'll bite. Why is abortion not a fundamental right, according to that persuasive legal text, dictionary.com?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with letting each state decide whether abortion should be legal in their state?

because it's a fundamental, federal, constitutional right.

are you aware of the definition of "fundamental"?

Are you going to whip out your dictionary again?

that wasn't me, but apparently you think an abortion is a "fundamental" right. And you would be at odds with the meaning of the term "fundamental".

Ok, I'll bite. Why is abortion not a fundamental right, according to that persuasive legal text, dictionary.com?

PP is trying to make the point that it's ironic to describe abortion as a fundamental right because the word fundamental means foundational and that it's origin is the word fundus, which is related to pregnancy. (Like when a physician takes a fundal measurement during pregnancy.) The point being that the pregnancy itself is "fundamental."

Except that in medicine, the fundus is the bottom or base of any hollow organ, furthest from the opening. There is a fundus of the uterus. There is also a fundus of the bladder, the eye, the gallbladder, the stomach. So PP's point is meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Libs can stomp their feet all they want, but I'll NEVER vote for a pro-choice politician. Ever. This literally takes precedent over every other issue. A large share of the voting population of the country feels the same way. So the GOP starts off with ~30% of the vote automatically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Libs can stomp their feet all they want, but I'll NEVER vote for a pro-choice politician. Ever. This literally takes precedent over every other issue. A large share of the voting population of the country feels the same way. So the GOP starts off with ~30% of the vote automatically.

I'm not stomping my feet. I just think you're an idiot to vote for people who may be personally vile, who may support any number of policies that are harmful to your family and your community, and who may have even gotten or paid for abortions themselves--just because they say they will vote a particular way on an issue that does not directly affect you. I can't believe you are proud to be manipulated by politicians who use this issue to get or stay in power. I can't believe you allow your disgust at abortion to lead you to vote for Republicans who are cheerfully planning to take food, shelter, and medical care away from children and pregnant women. You think we're angry--we're not. We're horrified that you are so stupid, short-sighted, easily manipulated, and willfully ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Libs can stomp their feet all they want, but I'll NEVER vote for a pro-choice politician. Ever. This literally takes precedent over every other issue. A large share of the voting population of the country feels the same way. So the GOP starts off with ~30% of the vote automatically.

And you believe that Trump is not pro-choice, ultimately? Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Libs can stomp their feet all they want, but I'll NEVER vote for a pro-choice politician. Ever. This literally takes precedent over every other issue. A large share of the voting population of the country feels the same way. So the GOP starts off with ~30% of the vote automatically.

And this is why I doubt the GOP will ever really overturn RvW: it's the most successful wedge issue they have. They'll drag their feet, blame it on "godless liberals", and their voters will continue to put them in office, all other issues be damned.

[Anonymous]

I find it interesting that Camille Paglia (of all people: a flamboyantly liberal lesbian) has long claimed liberals are dishonest in stating abortion is anything other than murder. To pretend it isn't murder belittles the murder of a fetus in the course of a crime.

Obviously abortion is murder, we're just deciding what someone gets to prioritize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Libs can stomp their feet all they want, but I'll NEVER vote for a pro-choice politician. Ever. This literally takes precedent over every other issue. A large share of the voting population of the country feels the same way. So the GOP starts off with ~30% of the vote automatically.

I'm not a liberal, but I am pro-choice. I don't get the idea of conservatives saying the government shouldn't dictate everything about how people live their lives, yet with the abortion debate, conservatives are quite happy to do just that - tell women what to do with their bodies. How does that make any sense?

Also, PP, I presume most of your anti-choice passion comes from a strong religious belief? If that's the case, ever read the reasons we have the 1st amendment and separation of church and state? Might do you some good to go research the topic a little.