Ohio heartbeat law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The state has no business forcing a woman to go through 9 months of an unwanted or doomed pregnancy and then forcing her to go through labor and delivery.

Women have aborted their pregnancies since humans began roaming the world, and they're not going to stop even if the government takes away their access to safe procedures. Take a look at any country that has outlawed abortions and tell me there are no abortions there. Tell me there are no women dying or being mutilated in their desperate quest to abort an unwanted pregnancy. Tell me what a paradise it is in those countries for all the women forced to go through pregnancies they didn't want. Tell me it's a paradise for all the kids born into these circumstances.

I dare all anti-choice people to read up on Savita Halappanavar and tell me this is your idea of how a great nation treats its women. Shame on you.

Karma/just deserts/etc.

See, you anti-choice people are absolutely not " pro-life" because you don't give a f@ck about women's lives.

Murder victim > murderer

Get it?

Again: you don't care about the fetus, you care about controlling the sex lives of women.

Do you really believe that? If so, you don't understand pro-life voters whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about a premature baby who requires life support? Should parent be able to Murder them too?

Now you're grabbing at straws with just plain stupid arguments.

I'll flip your tired reasoning around. What would have happened to that baby before modern technology created life support and it was left to the "will of god".

Okay you hack, I'll play. I'll flip YOUR tired reasoning around.

What would have happened to a child with a diagnosis of Diabetes before modern technology mastered the synthesis of insulin?

(I'll help you, it was a death sentence.) Now we have medical science that can change the course of a person's life. Is it right? Is it wrong? Is it the "will of God"?

Murdering a viable human being at 24/25 weeks gestation (the window keeps getting smaller) is still murder. It's the reason that if you commit a crime against a pregnant woman and she loses her baby, you are going on trial for murder.

OWN THAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about a premature baby who requires life support? Should parent be able to Murder them too?

Now you're grabbing at straws with just plain stupid arguments.

I'll flip your tired reasoning around. What would have happened to that baby before modern technology created life support and it was left to the "will of god".

The point is that if you can easily allow someone to live and recover it's murder to deny them that. If a child got an infectious disease and the doctor gave the parent antibiotics that would cure them, would it not be murder for the parent to refuse to give them to the child?

It depends on the state currently as to whether it is a criminal offense or not. Also, you're making a completely different argument that has nothing to do with viability and the right of a woman to choose what to do with her body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is such BS. If somebody wants to murder someone with a knife, they are using "their body" to do it. The government shouldn't make it illegal to do that just because it's "their body"? What BS. Every criminal law governs what you can do with your body.

My opposition to abortion doesn't come from religion, it comes from basic morality. Murder is wrong. An arbitrary distinction between a person located on one or another side of the brith canal doesn't change that.

Tell you what: when someone you want to murder is inside your body, you can kill them.

This anti-woman willingness to pretend that pregnancy is easy, simple, straightforward and safe is bullshart. It's not an "arbitrary distinction" to speak of something literally within one's body changing the function of every system and it speaks to the inherent misogyny in the anti-choice argument. You hate women. You think pregnancy is easy and that women should continue to give their bodies to this cause at your command.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about a premature baby who requires life support? Should parent be able to Murder them too?

Now you're grabbing at straws with just plain stupid arguments.

I'll flip your tired reasoning around. What would have happened to that baby before modern technology created life support and it was left to the "will of god".

Okay you hack, I'll play. I'll flip YOUR tired reasoning around.

What would have happened to a child with a diagnosis of Diabetes before modern technology mastered the synthesis of insulin?

(I'll help you, it was a death sentence.) Now we have medical science that can change the course of a person's life. Is it right? Is it wrong? Is it the "will of God"?

Murdering a viable human being at 24/25 weeks gestation (the window keeps getting smaller) is still murder. It's the reason that if you commit a crime against a pregnant woman and she loses her baby, you are going on trial for murder.

OWN THAT.

Sweetheart - seriously, you and the other anti-choice rubes need to stop consuming all the propaganda that tells you this is happening frequently. Less than 2% of all abortions occur 21 weeks and after. No woman is changing her mind about having a baby in their late second and third tr and getting an abortion. There's nothing to own here. I know women who have had late term abortions for health reasons and quite honestly you people who think they did this for fun or to solve an "inconvenience," (your side's words!) are scum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PPs above sound like nazis rationalizing the killing of Jews.

They were only tissue.

Trying to equate the Holocaust with abortion is one of those tired, crazy anti-choice arguments. The Jews were full on persons. A fetus does not receive legal recognition until viability.

3rd trimester fetuses are viable.

And no one is having 3rd tri abortions for funsies. It's anti-woman, anti-choice propaganda.

Given that the third trimester starts after 28 weeks, I think it's fairly safe to say that almost no third trimester abortions happen, period. If a woman's health is at stake after 28 weeks then the baby is removed by c-section or induced (because it has reached the point of viability). If a baby has died in-utero, then the woman is induced, but that is not an abortion.

Late-term abortions -- abortions after 21 weeks to the point of viability -- are almost without exception because there is something catastrophic happening with the pregnancy. And if a woman seeks an abortion at 29 weeks with a pregnancy that is not viable, it's almost certainly because she didn't have access to an doctor who would do an abortion earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Okay you hack, I'll play. I'll flip YOUR tired reasoning around.

What would have happened to a child with a diagnosis of Diabetes before modern technology mastered the synthesis of insulin?

(I'll help you, it was a death sentence.) Now we have medical science that can change the course of a person's life. Is it right? Is it wrong? Is it the "will of God"?

Murdering a viable human being at 24/25 weeks gestation (the window keeps getting smaller) is still murder. It's the reason that if you commit a crime against a pregnant woman and she loses her baby, you are going on trial for murder.

OWN THAT.

Who is murdering a viable fetus at 24/25 weeks? You made the claim, now back it with real facts and not conjecture.

And, where did I indicate that I thought a crime against a pregnant woman who lives but the fetus dies is murder? It is a crime against the woman. Whether it should be considered murder is a separate question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about a premature baby who requires life support? Should parent be able to Murder them too?

Now you're grabbing at straws with just plain stupid arguments.

I'll flip your tired reasoning around. What would have happened to that baby before modern technology created life support and it was left to the "will of god".

Okay you hack, I'll play. I'll flip YOUR tired reasoning around.

What would have happened to a child with a diagnosis of Diabetes before modern technology mastered the synthesis of insulin?

(I'll help you, it was a death sentence.) Now we have medical science that can change the course of a person's life. Is it right? Is it wrong? Is it the "will of God"?

Murdering a viable human being at 24/25 weeks gestation (the window keeps getting smaller) is still murder. It's the reason that if you commit a crime against a pregnant woman and she loses her baby, you are going on trial for murder.

OWN THAT.

How many women get abortions at 24/25 weeks gestation, and what are the reasons they do it? If you assert there are women doing this willy-nilly, then tell us what is going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is such BS. If somebody wants to murder someone with a knife, they are using "their body" to do it. The government shouldn't make it illegal to do that just because it's "their body"? What BS. Every criminal law governs what you can do with your body.

My opposition to abortion doesn't come from religion, it comes from basic morality. Murder is wrong. An arbitrary distinction between a person located on one or another side of the brith canal doesn't change that.

Tell you what: when someone you want to murder is inside your body, you can kill them.

This anti-woman willingness to pretend that pregnancy is easy, simple, straightforward and safe is bullshart. It's not an "arbitrary distinction" to speak of something literally within one's body changing the function of every system and it speaks to the inherent misogyny in the anti-choice argument. You hate women. You think pregnancy is easy and that women should continue to give their bodies to this cause at your command.

DP. You're way too violent for me. Keep it for yourself and your unlucky family.

[Anonymous]

You will all be MAF once we get two or three more pro-life justices on SCOTUS for a generation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The state has no business forcing a woman to go through 9 months of an unwanted or doomed pregnancy and then forcing her to go through labor and delivery.

Women have aborted their pregnancies since humans began roaming the world, and they're not going to stop even if the government takes away their access to safe procedures. Take a look at any country that has outlawed abortions and tell me there are no abortions there. Tell me there are no women dying or being mutilated in their desperate quest to abort an unwanted pregnancy. Tell me what a paradise it is in those countries for all the women forced to go through pregnancies they didn't want. Tell me it's a paradise for all the kids born into these circumstances.

I dare all anti-choice people to read up on Savita Halappanavar and tell me this is your idea of how a great nation treats its women. Shame on you.

Karma/just deserts/etc.

See, you anti-choice people are absolutely not " pro-life" because you don't give a f@ck about women's lives.

Murder victim > murderer

Get it?

Again: you don't care about the fetus, you care about controlling the sex lives of women.

Do you really believe that? If so, you don't understand pro-life voters whatsoever.

I know they don't care enough about women to find out why women want/need abortions. So I would call bs on their "pro-life" stance. Because women's lives are human lives.

[Anonymous]

Abortion used as a form of birth control is just plain wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You will all be MAF once we get two or three more pro-life justices on SCOTUS for a generation

I have never been an activist/volunteer, but I will personally start bringing women to abortion clinics -- even if that means driving up to Canada -- if abortion is outlawed here. And all my charity dollars will start being earmarked to pro-choice groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Abortion used as a form of birth control is just plain wrong.

Exactly. That's why the pro-life movement has been so supportive of easy access to birth control, to limit the risk of unplanned pregnancies and thus abortion.

Oh, wait...

[Anonymous]

Pregnancy is such an inconvenience! So just commit murder instead?