Ohio heartbeat law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not really. You seem to be saying that all women who had abortions could have just raised the baby, like you did, because it's just a little inconventient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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"

Did you even thing about what I wrote? It's an overall failure of birth control as public policy. If we have a way to get birth control to women to overcome their predictable irrationality (or lack of access or misinformation, as PP pointed out) then that shows that it's a larger failure of reproductive health policy leading to abortions. We KNOW that giving easy access to long-term birth control reduces abortion rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not really. You seem to be saying that all women who had abortions could have just raised the baby, like you did, because it's just a little inconventient.

I have shown in bold the last sentence of my response which hopefully answers your allegation.

[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.

Are you one of those people who would make it illegal for all women of child bearing age to drink alcohol, smoke, eat soft cheeses or do anything else that might endanger a budding pregnancy? Why not just lock all women up if all we amount to are incubatorsfor the next generation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Did you even thing about what I wrote? It's an overall failure of birth control as public policy. If we have a way to get birth control to women to overcome their predictable irrationality (or lack of access or misinformation, as PP pointed out) then that shows that it's a larger failure of reproductive health policy leading to abortions. We KNOW that giving easy access to long-term birth control reduces abortion rates.

I fundamentally disagree with you. It is a matter of accepting personal responsibility.

If a woman knows that having unprotected sex could lead to pregnancy, not using birth control, when there is ready access to it, is not tantamount to "overall failure of birth control as public policy".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, but I'm sure you've heard the rest of the flight attendant's message...first put mask on your own face so that you can then breathe and help those who are dependent on you. That's where a mother's ethics and morals come into the picture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did you even thing about what I wrote? It's an overall failure of birth control as public policy. If we have a way to get birth control to women to overcome their predictable irrationality (or lack of access or misinformation, as PP pointed out) then that shows that it's a larger failure of reproductive health policy leading to abortions. We KNOW that giving easy access to long-term birth control reduces abortion rates.

I fundamentally disagree with you. It is a matter of accepting personal responsibility.

If a woman knows that having unprotected sex could lead to pregnancy, not using birth control, when there is ready access to it, is not tantamount to "overall failure of birth control as public policy".

and you probably believe that people are rational actors in all areas of their lives. think a little more broadly if you actually care about making people's lives better, as opposed to casting judgment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, but I'm sure you've heard the rest of the flight attendant's message...first put mask on your own face so that you can then breathe and help those who are dependent on you. That's where a mother's ethics and morals come into the picture.

Exactly. And in some cases, the woman's morals and ethics indicate that she should have the abortion, because she's not ready to create a being that will be so dependant on her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, but I'm sure you've heard the rest of the flight attendant's message...first put mask on your own face so that you can then breathe and help those who are dependent on you. That's where a mother's ethics and morals come into the picture.

Exactly. And in some cases, the woman's morals and ethics indicate that she should have the abortion, because she's not ready to create a being that will be so dependant on her.

Not trying to be unkind here, but the "being" is already created. I'm not saying it's an easy decision; I know it's very, very hard. That's why I wish more women would think ahead and use birth control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did you even thing about what I wrote? It's an overall failure of birth control as public policy. If we have a way to get birth control to women to overcome their predictable irrationality (or lack of access or misinformation, as PP pointed out) then that shows that it's a larger failure of reproductive health policy leading to abortions. We KNOW that giving easy access to long-term birth control reduces abortion rates.

I fundamentally disagree with you. It is a matter of accepting personal responsibility.

If a woman knows that having unprotected sex could lead to pregnancy, not using birth control, when there is ready access to it, is not tantamount to "overall failure of birth control as public policy".

and you probably believe that people are rational actors in all areas of their lives. think a little more broadly if you actually care about making people's lives better, as opposed to casting judgment.

Quite honesty, it is your rationalizations that do the pro-choice movement a disservice. But we will not agree so I will leave it at that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did you even thing about what I wrote? It's an overall failure of birth control as public policy. If we have a way to get birth control to women to overcome their predictable irrationality (or lack of access or misinformation, as PP pointed out) then that shows that it's a larger failure of reproductive health policy leading to abortions. We KNOW that giving easy access to long-term birth control reduces abortion rates.

I fundamentally disagree with you. It is a matter of accepting personal responsibility.

If a woman knows that having unprotected sex could lead to pregnancy, not using birth control, when there is ready access to it, is not tantamount to "overall failure of birth control as public policy".

and you probably believe that people are rational actors in all areas of their lives. think a little more broadly if you actually care about making people's lives better, as opposed to casting judgment.

Quite honesty, it is your rationalizations that do the pro-choice movement a disservice. But we will not agree so I will leave it at that.

what, you think the pro choice movement would somehow be served by emphasizing that women with unplanned pregnancies are irresponsible flakes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, but I'm sure you've heard the rest of the flight attendant's message...first put mask on your own face so that you can then breathe and help those who are dependent on you. That's where a mother's ethics and morals come into the picture.

Exactly. And in some cases, the woman's morals and ethics indicate that she should have the abortion, because she's not ready to create a being that will be so dependant on her.

Not trying to be unkind here, but the "being" is already created. I'm not saying it's an easy decision; I know it's very, very hard. That's why I wish more women would think ahead and use birth control.

It has nothing to do with kindness or unkindness. I know YOU don't want to hear this, but the vast majority of women who have abortions don't consider the embryo to be a being in the same way a living, breathing child is a being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, but I'm sure you've heard the rest of the flight attendant's message...first put mask on your own face so that you can then breathe and help those who are dependent on you. That's where a mother's ethics and morals come into the picture.

Exactly. And in some cases, the woman's morals and ethics indicate that she should have the abortion, because she's not ready to create a being that will be so dependant on her.

Not trying to be unkind here, but the "being" is already created. I'm not saying it's an easy decision; I know it's very, very hard. That's why I wish more women would think ahead and use birth control.

So, is this the being you are referring to?










Except, this was a trick. This is a chimpanzee embryo. Can't tell the difference can you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, but I'm sure you've heard the rest of the flight attendant's message...first put mask on your own face so that you can then breathe and help those who are dependent on you. That's where a mother's ethics and morals come into the picture.

And many women weigh the ethics and morals of caring for their already existing children and decide that outweighs growing another child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, but I'm sure you've heard the rest of the flight attendant's message...first put mask on your own face so that you can then breathe and help those who are dependent on you. That's where a mother's ethics and morals come into the picture.

Exactly. And in some cases, the woman's morals and ethics indicate that she should have the abortion, because she's not ready to create a being that will be so dependant on her.

Not trying to be unkind here, but the "being" is already created. I'm not saying it's an easy decision; I know it's very, very hard. That's why I wish more women would think ahead and use birth control.

It has nothing to do with kindness or unkindness. I know YOU don't want to hear this, but the vast majority of women who have abortions don't consider the embryo to be a being in the same way a living, breathing child is a being.

I don't either, but it's definitely a created "being" with a "beating heart."