Ohio heartbeat law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Humans aren't rational. We make very predictable mistakes because that is how our brains work. It's a trade off we made long ago in order to rapidly process threats in our environment to avoid getting eaten by tigers. One area that humans are extraordinarily bad at is judging risk in certain situations. Being human and having the ability to plan, though, we can create failsafes to protect ourselves from our predictable human errors. Long term birth control such as IUDs is a very effective failsafe to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

[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.

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

And many women weigh the ethics and morals of caring for their already existing children and take steps--as much as is humanly possible--to not get pregnant again.

[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.

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

And many women weigh the ethics and morals of caring for their already existing children and take steps--as much as is humanly possible--to not get pregnant again.

And yet, being human, pregnancy still happens.

[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.

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

And many women weigh the ethics and morals of caring for their already existing children and take steps--as much as is humanly possible--to not get pregnant again.

And yet, being human, pregnancy still happens.

Yes, and I know a wonderful young couple who couldn't have children of their own. They've just adopted the most precious little girl who is now loved and adored, and she gives them such joy! They are only appreciative and supportive of the college girl who decided to not have an abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

And many women weigh the ethics and morals of caring for their already existing children and take steps--as much as is humanly possible--to not get pregnant again.

And yet, being human, pregnancy still happens.

Yes, and I know a wonderful young couple who couldn't have children of their own. They've just adopted the most precious little girl who is now loved and adored, and she gives them such joy! They are only appreciative and supportive of the college girl who decided to not have an abortion.

I could never give up a baby for adoption. I'd much rather abort a 4 week old embryo than that. Remember that this is a personal choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

And many women weigh the ethics and morals of caring for their already existing children and take steps--as much as is humanly possible--to not get pregnant again.

And yet, being human, pregnancy still happens.

Yes, and I know a wonderful young couple who couldn't have children of their own. They've just adopted the most precious little girl who is now loved and adored, and she gives them such joy! They are only appreciative and supportive of the college girl who decided to not have an abortion.

I know many really wonderful people whose lives have been changed so much for the better by adoption. I do not know a single one of them who believes that it is ethical to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term so that the baby can be adopted by a family who wants a child but isn't able to conceive one. Every one of my friends who have adopted are grateful that their child's birth mother did not choose abortion, but they would never, ever have forced a pregnancy on someone who was unwilling to be pregnant.

[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.

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

And many women weigh the ethics and morals of caring for their already existing children and take steps--as much as is humanly possible--to not get pregnant again.

And what about girls whose puritanical parents teach only about abstinence (and oppose teaching sex Ed in schools) or victims of rape and incest? Too bad for them I guess. God bless the American Taliban.

[Anonymous]

Just leave it to the states to decide if abortion should be legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just leave it to the states to decide if abortion should be legal.

Yeah, no. That's not what we're going to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just leave it to the states to decide if abortion should be legal.

Yeah, no. That's not what we're going to do.

It may not be what you want to do but after a couple of conservative Supreme Court picks you will likely see things move in that direction.

Remember, as Obama said, elections have consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

And many women weigh the ethics and morals of caring for their already existing children and take steps--as much as is humanly possible--to not get pregnant again.

And yet, being human, pregnancy still happens.

Yes, and I know a wonderful young couple who couldn't have children of their own. They've just adopted the most precious little girl who is now loved and adored, and she gives them such joy! They are only appreciative and supportive of the college girl who decided to not have an abortion.

I have the upmost respect for the college student who allowed her child to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just leave it to the states to decide if abortion should be legal.

Yeah, no. That's not what we're going to do.

It may not be what you want to do but after a couple of conservative Supreme Court picks you will likely see things move in that direction.

Remember, as Obama said, elections have consequences.

Stare decisis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just leave it to the states to decide if abortion should be legal.

Yeah, no. That's not what we're going to do.

It may not be what you want to do but after a couple of conservative Supreme Court picks you will likely see things move in that direction.

Remember, as Obama said, elections have consequences.

I love that people think that anti-choice and anti-birth control laws, if enacted broadly and draconianly as the goobers want, would be welcomed broadly. It would only take a few middle class women dying of sepsis for the country to throw the bums out. Women are not brood mares. They're not Eve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just leave it to the states to decide if abortion should be legal.

Yeah, no. That's not what we're going to do.

It may not be what you want to do but after a couple of conservative Supreme Court picks you will likely see things move in that direction.

Remember, as Obama said, elections have consequences.

Stare decisis.

Abortions will not be made illegal but states will be given more discretion on when they can be carried out. This is already happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just leave it to the states to decide if abortion should be legal.

Yeah, no. That's not what we're going to do.

It may not be what you want to do but after a couple of conservative Supreme Court picks you will likely see things move in that direction.

Remember, as Obama said, elections have consequences.

I love that people think that anti-choice and anti-birth control laws, if enacted broadly and draconianly as the goobers want, would be welcomed broadly. It would only take a few middle class women dying of sepsis for the country to throw the bums out. Women are not brood mares. They're not Eve.

So what did the Democrats do that caused the people to throw them out of the presidency, control of the Senate, control of the House, loss of 18 governorships since 2008, loss of over 900 seats in the state legislatures?

It had to be more than mere sepsis for this magnitude of rejection!