Ohio heartbeat law

[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.

Hi, I posted the Guttmacher stat above. Did you read it? HALF of abortions are the result of failed birth control. HALF. Your family members are wrong. Science does not support their perspective.

I don't doubt that many of those women were not using birth control 100% correctly. Do you take the pill at exactly the same time every single day? Many people don't know how to put condoms on correctly. But the reality of the statistics is that 51% of abortions are the result of birth control failure.

[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.

The problem is you're making a claim about a large population based on anecdotes that directly contradicts research in this area. It's irresponsible to propagate this information as fact. And I can also cite "informed anecdotal" information from people who work in women's health that disagrees with this. Well, at least the part where it's due to irresponsibility rather than, say, inadequate access to birth control or misinformation about birth control.

Also, even the most effective forms of BC, when used correctly, only have something like a 99% success rate. How few people do you think are having sex in this country of 100s of millions that BC failure couldn't account for the vast majority of abortions on the scale of millions. Hint, the numbers line up exactly is we assume most adults have sex.

[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.

Hi, I posted the Guttmacher stat above. Did you read it? HALF of abortions are the result of failed birth control. HALF. Your family members are wrong. Science does not support their perspective.

I don't doubt that many of those women were not using birth control 100% correctly. Do you take the pill at exactly the same time every single day? Many people don't know how to put condoms on correctly. But the reality of the statistics is that 51% of abortions are the result of birth control failure.

Yes, I saw that study even before you cited it. There are issues with it which are beyond the purview of this discussion but even if one accepts the stats offered, it is still a very large number of abortions that occur for other reasons.

As I mentioned, I am actually pro-choice even though an abortion is out of the question for me personally. Actually, I don't have to worry about a pregnancy today because we are passed that point. But our last child was not planned and happened when we were both in our mid forties. It was a serious "inconvenience" but the thought of an abortion did not cross our minds. And given how things worked out, we have never made a better decision ever!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hi, I posted the Guttmacher stat above. Did you read it? HALF of abortions are the result of failed birth control. HALF. Your family members are wrong. Science does not support their perspective.

I don't doubt that many of those women were not using birth control 100% correctly. Do you take the pill at exactly the same time every single day? Many people don't know how to put condoms on correctly. But the reality of the statistics is that 51% of abortions are the result of birth control failure.

Yes, I saw that study even before you cited it. There are issues with it which are beyond the purview of this discussion but even if one accepts the stats offered, it is still a very large number of abortions that occur for other reasons.

As I mentioned, I am actually pro-choice even though an abortion is out of the question for me personally. Actually, I don't have to worry about a pregnancy today because we are passed that point. But our last child was not planned and happened when we were both in our mid forties. It was a serious "inconvenience" but the thought of an abortion did not cross our minds. And given how things worked out, we have never made a better decision ever!

That's nice that your unplanned baby was just an "inconvenience" and not a truly life-altering, terrible mistake for parent and child. Because you do know what happens to unwanted children, right? It's not pretty. "Inconvenience" is not a word that describes having a child. That's like describing cancer, or a kidney donation, or dying, as an "inconvenience." It's a massive, massive decision that unalterably changes the body, mind, psyche, and finances of a woman and her family. Not to mention the fact that choosing to have a baby creates an actual person affected by the situation he is born into.

[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.

Hi, I posted the Guttmacher stat above. Did you read it? HALF of abortions are the result of failed birth control. HALF. Your family members are wrong. Science does not support their perspective.

I don't doubt that many of those women were not using birth control 100% correctly. Do you take the pill at exactly the same time every single day? Many people don't know how to put condoms on correctly. But the reality of the statistics is that 51% of abortions are the result of birth control failure.

Exactly. And I'll go even further to say for that 49% that did not even bother to use birth control, that's still a kind of birth control failure. Human behavior is predictably irrational, and that includes not acting prudently in the face of risks, or telling yourself "well, just this one time won't hurt ..." AKA wishful thinking. With better access to long-term birth control, unplanned pregnancy rates go down. It's not because those women who would otherwise have gotten pregnant were using condoms that broke. The women not getting pregnant are the ones who weren't behaving rationally. Long-term birth control, easily accessible, erases those consequences and removes the ability to act irrationally. It's great and everyone should have access to it!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/colorados-push-against-teenage-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If inside my body is less private than inside my house (where government can not search without a warrant), I don't know what is privacy anymore and where government intrusion can stop.

If there's a heart beating within your body, in addition to your own beating heart, it's not just YOUR body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obviously you must be stupid.

There's a philosophical difference between wanted child and unexpected pregnancy. There's also chronological complexity bringing the two together.

You want this to be easy. That's because you're simple-minded.

You don't even know how crazy and off topic you are. Neat!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If inside my body is less private than inside my house (where government can not search without a warrant), I don't know what is privacy anymore and where government intrusion can stop.

If there's a heart beating within your body, in addition to your own beating heart, it's not just YOUR body.

Yes, it is. Legally, ethically, and morally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, I saw that study even before you cited it. There are issues with it which are beyond the purview of this discussion but even if one accepts the stats offered, it is still a very large number of abortions that occur for other reasons.

As I mentioned, I am actually pro-choice even though an abortion is out of the question for me personally. Actually, I don't have to worry about a pregnancy today because we are passed that point. But our last child was not planned and happened when we were both in our mid forties. It was a serious "inconvenience" but the thought of an abortion did not cross our minds. And given how things worked out, we have never made a better decision ever!

That's nice that your unplanned baby was just an "inconvenience" and not a truly life-altering, terrible mistake for parent and child. Because you do know what happens to unwanted children, right? It's not pretty. "Inconvenience" is not a word that describes having a child. That's like describing cancer, or a kidney donation, or dying, as an "inconvenience." It's a massive, massive decision that unalterably changes the body, mind, psyche, and finances of a woman and her family. Not to mention the fact that choosing to have a baby creates an actual person affected by the situation he is born into.

Well, that is where we differ. For us, no matter what the circumstances the brought about the pregnancy, it was a responsibility that we could not shirk.

Of course, it changed our lives in many significant ways and not always for the best. But for us, we had created a life - albeit an unintended one - and that did not give us the right to terminate the pregnancy.

I would go a step further: we did not do any pre-screening for genetic defects despite the much higher risk because of our ages ie Downs Syndrome, etc. The reason we did not do it was irrespective of the findings, we would not have aborted the fetus.

But this was a personal decision and I would not expect anyone else to follow how we approached it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If inside my body is less private than inside my house (where government can not search without a warrant), I don't know what is privacy anymore and where government intrusion can stop.

If there's a heart beating within your body, in addition to your own beating heart, it's not just YOUR body.

Yes, it is. Legally, ethically, and morally.

Legally, yes. Ethically and morally would depend on the ethics and morals of the person who is pregnant with the baby and its beating heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, I saw that study even before you cited it. There are issues with it which are beyond the purview of this discussion but even if one accepts the stats offered, it is still a very large number of abortions that occur for other reasons.

As I mentioned, I am actually pro-choice even though an abortion is out of the question for me personally. Actually, I don't have to worry about a pregnancy today because we are passed that point. But our last child was not planned and happened when we were both in our mid forties. It was a serious "inconvenience" but the thought of an abortion did not cross our minds. And given how things worked out, we have never made a better decision ever!

That's nice that your unplanned baby was just an "inconvenience" and not a truly life-altering, terrible mistake for parent and child. Because you do know what happens to unwanted children, right? It's not pretty. "Inconvenience" is not a word that describes having a child. That's like describing cancer, or a kidney donation, or dying, as an "inconvenience." It's a massive, massive decision that unalterably changes the body, mind, psyche, and finances of a woman and her family. Not to mention the fact that choosing to have a baby creates an actual person affected by the situation he is born into.

Well, that is where we differ. For us, no matter what the circumstances the brought about the pregnancy, it was a responsibility that we could not shirk.

Of course, it changed our lives in many significant ways and not always for the best. But for us, we had created a life - albeit an unintended one - and that did not give us the right to terminate the pregnancy.

I would go a step further: we did not do any pre-screening for genetic defects despite the much higher risk because of our ages ie Downs Syndrome, etc. The reason we did not do it was irrespective of the findings, we would not have aborted the fetus.

But this was a personal decision and I would not expect anyone else to follow how we approached it.

That's great. Sounds like you have the financial, emotional, and family resources to raise the child, and even a disabled child. That has exactly zero to do with anyone else's decision, unless you live in some fantasy land where everything falls into place when the baby is born. Not everything is about you, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly. And I'll go even further to say for that 49% that did not even bother to use birth control, that's still a kind of birth control failure. Human behavior is predictably irrational, and that includes not acting prudently in the face of risks, or telling yourself "well, just this one time won't hurt ..." AKA wishful thinking. With better access to long-term birth control, unplanned pregnancy rates go down. It's not because those women who would otherwise have gotten pregnant were using condoms that broke. The women not getting pregnant are the ones who weren't behaving rationally. Long-term birth control, easily accessible, erases those consequences and removes the ability to act irrationally. It's great and everyone should have access to it!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/colorados-push-against-teenage-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html

Different PP. And I will say that you seem to be passing a value judgment a little heavy-handedly. There are many reasons why people may fail to use BC including lack of access and misinformation. The latter is particularly pernicious, since it's often propagated by religious institutions advocating things like "the Rhythm Method".

But your second point is well taken. I just think it's not helpful to paint abortion seekers as broadly irresponsible when there are many factors at play keeping them from using BC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hi, I posted the Guttmacher stat above. Did you read it? HALF of abortions are the result of failed birth control. HALF. Your family members are wrong. Science does not support their perspective.

I don't doubt that many of those women were not using birth control 100% correctly. Do you take the pill at exactly the same time every single day? Many people don't know how to put condoms on correctly. But the reality of the statistics is that 51% of abortions are the result of birth control failure.

Exactly. And I'll go even further to say for that 49% that did not even bother to use birth control, that's still a kind of birth control failure. Human behavior is predictably irrational, and that includes not acting prudently in the face of risks, or telling yourself "well, just this one time won't hurt ..." AKA wishful thinking. With better access to long-term birth control, unplanned pregnancy rates go down. It's not because those women who would otherwise have gotten pregnant were using condoms that broke. The women not getting pregnant are the ones who weren't behaving rationally. Long-term birth control, easily accessible, erases those consequences and removes the ability to act irrationally. It's great and everyone should have access to it!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/colorados-push-against-teenage-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html

It is ludicrous to say not USING birth control equates to a "birth control failure"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If inside my body is less private than inside my house (where government can not search without a warrant), I don't know what is privacy anymore and where government intrusion can stop.

If there's a heart beating within your body, in addition to your own beating heart, it's not just YOUR body.

Yes, it is. Legally, ethically, and morally.

Legally, yes. Ethically and morally would depend on the ethics and morals of the person who is pregnant with the baby and its beating heart.

Like the oxygen masks on airplanes, a pregnant woman's first and greatest responsibility is to herself. After that, it is up to her how much care she wishes to give the other beating heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, I saw that study even before you cited it. There are issues with it which are beyond the purview of this discussion but even if one accepts the stats offered, it is still a very large number of abortions that occur for other reasons.

As I mentioned, I am actually pro-choice even though an abortion is out of the question for me personally. Actually, I don't have to worry about a pregnancy today because we are passed that point. But our last child was not planned and happened when we were both in our mid forties. It was a serious "inconvenience" but the thought of an abortion did not cross our minds. And given how things worked out, we have never made a better decision ever!

That's nice that your unplanned baby was just an "inconvenience" and not a truly life-altering, terrible mistake for parent and child. Because you do know what happens to unwanted children, right? It's not pretty. "Inconvenience" is not a word that describes having a child. That's like describing cancer, or a kidney donation, or dying, as an "inconvenience." It's a massive, massive decision that unalterably changes the body, mind, psyche, and finances of a woman and her family. Not to mention the fact that choosing to have a baby creates an actual person affected by the situation he is born into.

Well, that is where we differ. For us, no matter what the circumstances the brought about the pregnancy, it was a responsibility that we could not shirk.

Of course, it changed our lives in many significant ways and not always for the best. But for us, we had created a life - albeit an unintended one - and that did not give us the right to terminate the pregnancy.

I would go a step further: we did not do any pre-screening for genetic defects despite the much higher risk because of our ages ie Downs Syndrome, etc. The reason we did not do it was irrespective of the findings, we would not have aborted the fetus.

But this was a personal decision and I would not expect anyone else to follow how we approached it.

That's great. Sounds like you have the financial, emotional, and family resources to raise the child, and even a disabled child. That has exactly zero to do with anyone else's decision, unless you live in some fantasy land where everything falls into place when the baby is born. Not everything is about you, right?

I think I have answered the points you raised repeatedly.