Ohio heartbeat law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, I am pro-choice but I can tell you categorically that many abortions are the result of outright irresponsibility and the attitude that if pregnancy results then abortion is a ready remedy. It is downright immoral to abort just because a couple were not willing to take steps to prevent pregnancy. It has nothing to do with controlling a woman's sex life - it has to do with being responsible before having sex.

And you know this because you are a researcher or because you work at a women's clinic?

I know this because there are several family members - including immediate family - who are physicians and they have repeatedly stated this based on their knowledge of what happens. One is OB/GYN ..... they are all pro-choice but they would tell you that the vast majority of abortions are not the failure of birth control or rape or incest or concerns about the health of a mother.

It happens because no precautions are taken to avoid pregnancy since there is a fallback - namely an abortion.

So I assume they support free access to birth control, right? I mean, that is the logical conclusion if you are against using abortion as birth control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, I am pro-choice but I can tell you categorically that many abortions are the result of outright irresponsibility and the attitude that if pregnancy results then abortion is a ready remedy. It is downright immoral to abort just because a couple were not willing to take steps to prevent pregnancy. It has nothing to do with controlling a woman's sex life - it has to do with being responsible before having sex.

And you know this because you are a researcher or because you work at a women's clinic?

I know this because there are several family members - including immediate family - who are physicians and they have repeatedly stated this based on their knowledge of what happens. One is OB/GYN ..... they are all pro-choice but they would tell you that the vast majority of abortions are not the failure of birth control or rape or incest or concerns about the health of a mother.

It happens because no precautions are taken to avoid pregnancy since there is a fallback - namely an abortion.

Seriously, they've conducted scientific polls to know for sure that the availability of abortion is the reason people didn't use protection? It's possible that anecdotally this is true in a given community...but the opinion of several family members (only one of which is an OB/GYN) is not definitive to me. I know literally hundreds of doctors who have a variety of view points on this matter, and my mother is a neonatologist. She's very religious and anti-choice for that reason, but she has never stated that the availability of abortion makes people less likely to use birth control. And the population of mothers she sees skews heavily toward unwanted pregnancies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, I am pro-choice but I can tell you categorically that many abortions are the result of outright irresponsibility and the attitude that if pregnancy results then abortion is a ready remedy. It is downright immoral to abort just because a couple were not willing to take steps to prevent pregnancy. It has nothing to do with controlling a woman's sex life - it has to do with being responsible before having sex.

And you know this because you are a researcher or because you work at a women's clinic?

I know this because there are several family members - including immediate family - who are physicians and they have repeatedly stated this based on their knowledge of what happens. One is OB/GYN ..... they are all pro-choice but they would tell you that the vast majority of abortions are not the failure of birth control or rape or incest or concerns about the health of a mother.

It happens because no precautions are taken to avoid pregnancy since there is a fallback - namely an abortion.

So I assume they support free access to birth control, right? I mean, that is the logical conclusion if you are against using abortion as birth control.

I can't speak for them but I support ready access to birth control - whether it should be free or subsidized is a function of what people can afford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I know this because there are several family members - including immediate family - who are physicians and they have repeatedly stated this based on their knowledge of what happens. One is OB/GYN ..... they are all pro-choice but they would tell you that the vast majority of abortions are not the failure of birth control or rape or incest or concerns about the health of a mother.

It happens because no precautions are taken to avoid pregnancy since there is a fallback - namely an abortion.

First off, no contraceptive is 100% effective. Thus, even if precautions are taken, there is no guarantee that a pregnancy won't result.

Second, what's wrong with letting the woman choose what to do regardless of how she got pregnant? If, as under your theory, that she is irresponsible due to inability to use contraception or plan ahead, what makes you think she should keep the baby to term and raise it? She is now magically responsible enough to be a good parent and to raise the child properly?

[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".

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.

Sweetheart,

I was attacked by a violent drug addict in my 34th week of pregnancy. He kept saying "Give me your money or I'll kill you. Give me your money or I'll kill you. Give me your money or I'll kill you."

What was going through my head was "You can't kill me yet! Kill me in 3 weeks, but not yet!"

So... I don't need a lesson from you about viability, you stupid supposedly superior f*ckwit. I screamed in the face of that would-be murderer in real life, don't think I'm afraid your invisibleness and ineffectuality online. You jack*ass.

The fact is that once a woman decides she wants a child, we have now culturally agreed that it is a baby.

We have to square the circle of the valued unborn child. You're the worst sort of pretended defender of women if you think this is easy.

You rube, you scum.

Your little story has absolutely Z E R O to do with the discussion around ABORTION.

No.

Your little brain has failed to comprehend absolutely Z E R O about the discussion of the equivalence between the viable baby and the unwanted fetus vis-a-vis abortion.

(Maybe the words are too long for you.)

It's entirely possible that they are the same living organism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I know this because there are several family members - including immediate family - who are physicians and they have repeatedly stated this based on their knowledge of what happens. One is OB/GYN ..... they are all pro-choice but they would tell you that the vast majority of abortions are not the failure of birth control or rape or incest or concerns about the health of a mother.

It happens because no precautions are taken to avoid pregnancy since there is a fallback - namely an abortion.

First off, no contraceptive is 100% effective. Thus, even if precautions are taken, there is no guarantee that a pregnancy won't result.

Second, what's wrong with letting the woman choose what to do regardless of how she got pregnant? If, as under your theory, that she is irresponsible due to inability to use contraception or plan ahead, what makes you think she should keep the baby to term and raise it? She is now magically responsible enough to be a good parent and to raise the child properly?

The reason is simple: although I am pro-choice, I still believe that abortion is the taking of incipient life. Not a religious viewpoint but just a moral one. While I would not deny a woman the right to abort, I still think it is not something that a woman should do unless there is a compelling reason not to have the child. A compelling reason does not include the inconvenience of having a baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The reason is simple: although I am pro-choice, I still believe that abortion is the taking of incipient life. Not a religious viewpoint but just a moral one. While I would not deny a woman the right to abort, I still think it is not something that a woman should do unless there is a compelling reason not to have the child. A compelling reason does not include the inconvenience of having a baby.

Different PP, and I have a similar moral code. But what I'm puzzled by is your insistence, based on anecdote per your own posts, that a large number (maybe majority) of abortions are due to women using it as their primary form of birth control. That's a pretty bold statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I know this because there are several family members - including immediate family - who are physicians and they have repeatedly stated this based on their knowledge of what happens. One is OB/GYN ..... they are all pro-choice but they would tell you that the vast majority of abortions are not the failure of birth control or rape or incest or concerns about the health of a mother.

It happens because no precautions are taken to avoid pregnancy since there is a fallback - namely an abortion.

First off, no contraceptive is 100% effective. Thus, even if precautions are taken, there is no guarantee that a pregnancy won't result.

Second, what's wrong with letting the woman choose what to do regardless of how she got pregnant? If, as under your theory, that she is irresponsible due to inability to use contraception or plan ahead, what makes you think she should keep the baby to term and raise it? She is now magically responsible enough to be a good parent and to raise the child properly?

The reason is simple: although I am pro-choice, I still believe that abortion is the taking of incipient life. Not a religious viewpoint but just a moral one. While I would not deny a woman the right to abort, I still think it is not something that a woman should do unless there is a compelling reason not to have the child. A compelling reason does not include the inconvenience of having a baby.

Or perhaps allow adoption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, I am pro-choice but I can tell you categorically that many abortions are the result of outright irresponsibility and the attitude that if pregnancy results then abortion is a ready remedy. It is downright immoral to abort just because a couple were not willing to take steps to prevent pregnancy. It has nothing to do with controlling a woman's sex life - it has to do with being responsible before having sex.

And you know this because you are a researcher or because you work at a women's clinic?

I know this because there are several family members - including immediate family - who are physicians and they have repeatedly stated this based on their knowledge of what happens. One is OB/GYN ..... they are all pro-choice but they would tell you that the vast majority of abortions are not the failure of birth control or rape or incest or concerns about the health of a mother.

It happens because no precautions are taken to avoid pregnancy since there is a fallback - namely an abortion.

Per Guttmacher stats, 51% of abortions are of pregnancies that occurred while some form of birth control was being used - usually condoms or a hormonal method. That is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to your family members' opinions on the matter, which are not scientific. (Link here: https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states)

The reality is that abortion IS a form of birth control. How many forms of birth control do you use? I'm married and I have an IUD, so I rely on the IUD, which has a very high effectiveness rating, to prevent pregnancy. My back up method of birth control, in the event that I become pregnant when I don't want to be, is having an abortion. Prior to the IUD, I was on the pill, and when it failed one month and I got pregnant, I got an abortion because that was my back up method of birth control then too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I know this because there are several family members - including immediate family - who are physicians and they have repeatedly stated this based on their knowledge of what happens. One is OB/GYN ..... they are all pro-choice but they would tell you that the vast majority of abortions are not the failure of birth control or rape or incest or concerns about the health of a mother.

It happens because no precautions are taken to avoid pregnancy since there is a fallback - namely an abortion.

First off, no contraceptive is 100% effective. Thus, even if precautions are taken, there is no guarantee that a pregnancy won't result.

Second, what's wrong with letting the woman choose what to do regardless of how she got pregnant? If, as under your theory, that she is irresponsible due to inability to use contraception or plan ahead, what makes you think she should keep the baby to term and raise it? She is now magically responsible enough to be a good parent and to raise the child properly?

The reason is simple: although I am pro-choice, I still believe that abortion is the taking of incipient life. Not a religious viewpoint but just a moral one. While I would not deny a woman the right to abort, I still think it is not something that a woman should do unless there is a compelling reason not to have the child. A compelling reason does not include the inconvenience of having a baby.

Or perhaps allow adoption.

So if you're okay with forcing someone to be pregnant when they don't want to be, are you also okay with forcing someone to donate a kidney if they don't want to do so? Are you okay with forcing someone to continue cancer treatment when they don't want to anymore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I know this because there are several family members - including immediate family - who are physicians and they have repeatedly stated this based on their knowledge of what happens. One is OB/GYN ..... they are all pro-choice but they would tell you that the vast majority of abortions are not the failure of birth control or rape or incest or concerns about the health of a mother.

It happens because no precautions are taken to avoid pregnancy since there is a fallback - namely an abortion.

First off, no contraceptive is 100% effective. Thus, even if precautions are taken, there is no guarantee that a pregnancy won't result.

Second, what's wrong with letting the woman choose what to do regardless of how she got pregnant? If, as under your theory, that she is irresponsible due to inability to use contraception or plan ahead, what makes you think she should keep the baby to term and raise it? She is now magically responsible enough to be a good parent and to raise the child properly?

The reason is simple: although I am pro-choice, I still believe that abortion is the taking of incipient life. Not a religious viewpoint but just a moral one. While I would not deny a woman the right to abort, I still think it is not something that a woman should do unless there is a compelling reason not to have the child. A compelling reason does not include the inconvenience of having a baby.

Actually, I'm not going to pussyfoot around it.

Fine. It's murder. The mother gets to decide because it's HER body. (Stark contrast to an attack on her as a pregnant woman: because then a criminal has chosen to injure or murder her or her baby).

Let's just stop pretending it isn't what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The reason is simple: although I am pro-choice, I still believe that abortion is the taking of incipient life. Not a religious viewpoint but just a moral one. While I would not deny a woman the right to abort, I still think it is not something that a woman should do unless there is a compelling reason not to have the child. A compelling reason does not include the inconvenience of having a baby.

Different PP, and I have a similar moral code. But what I'm puzzled by is your insistence, based on anecdote per your own posts, that a large number (maybe majority) of abortions are due to women using it as their primary form of birth control. That's a pretty bold statement.

Yes, my information is anecdotal - but it is "informed anecdotes" - because none of the individuals I cited are opposed to choice but they do feel that it is a choice that is not always responsibly used.

There are other examples I can cite but it would also be anecdotal.

It is a convenient alibi to use for some women to say that their birth control failed - and I am sure it happens just as there are pregnancies that are caused by rape and incest - but seriously, the millions of abortions that occur cannot be attributed to failed contraceptives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, I'm not going to pussyfoot around it.

Fine. It's murder. The mother gets to decide because it's HER body. (Stark contrast to an attack on her as a pregnant woman: because then a criminal has chosen to injure or murder her or her baby).

Let's just stop pretending it isn't what it is.

Yes, I hear this said as well ..... but the logical extension is that fetus is in a woman's body until delivery. Why should a woman not be allowed to abort at any time until delivery? Why should there be any limitation such as R v W regarding the final semester and the viability of a fetus? After all, it is the woman's body and therefore her right as to whether she wants to carry the fetus to term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The reason is simple: although I am pro-choice, I still believe that abortion is the taking of incipient life. Not a religious viewpoint but just a moral one. While I would not deny a woman the right to abort, I still think it is not something that a woman should do unless there is a compelling reason not to have the child. A compelling reason does not include the inconvenience of having a baby.

Different PP, and I have a similar moral code. But what I'm puzzled by is your insistence, based on anecdote per your own posts, that a large number (maybe majority) of abortions are due to women using it as their primary form of birth control. That's a pretty bold statement.

Yes, my information is anecdotal - but it is "informed anecdotes" - because none of the individuals I cited are opposed to choice but they do feel that it is a choice that is not always responsibly used.

There are other examples I can cite but it would also be anecdotal.

It is a convenient alibi to use for some women to say that their birth control failed - and I am sure it happens just as there are pregnancies that are caused by rape and incest - but seriously, the millions of abortions that occur cannot be attributed to failed contraceptives.

And again the question must be asked - if you oppose these abortions particularly on the ground that the woman (and it's always the woman's fault, right?) is irresponsible for not using birth control - then you must support free birth control, excellent sex education in school, and aggressive marketing and handing out of free birth control so that every woman has an easy way to keep herself from getting pregnant, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The reason is simple: although I am pro-choice, I still believe that abortion is the taking of incipient life. Not a religious viewpoint but just a moral one. While I would not deny a woman the right to abort, I still think it is not something that a woman should do unless there is a compelling reason not to have the child. A compelling reason does not include the inconvenience of having a baby.

Different PP, and I have a similar moral code. But what I'm puzzled by is your insistence, based on anecdote per your own posts, that a large number (maybe majority) of abortions are due to women using it as their primary form of birth control. That's a pretty bold statement.

Yes, my information is anecdotal - but it is "informed anecdotes" - because none of the individuals I cited are opposed to choice but they do feel that it is a choice that is not always responsibly used.

There are other examples I can cite but it would also be anecdotal.

It is a convenient alibi to use for some women to say that their birth control failed - and I am sure it happens just as there are pregnancies that are caused by rape and incest - but seriously, the millions of abortions that occur cannot be attributed to failed contraceptives.

And again the question must be asked - if you oppose these abortions particularly on the ground that the woman (and it's always the woman's fault, right?) is irresponsible for not using birth control - then you must support free birth control, excellent sex education in school, and aggressive marketing and handing out of free birth control so that every woman has an easy way to keep herself from getting pregnant, right?

Not the PP. But she said she's pro-choice...stop attacking her on those grounds. I question the anecdotal information she's spreading, but she's not opposed to abortion rights. It doesn't help the cause to attack your allies!