Ohio heartbeat law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^Cite please for the pope saying that!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/world/europe/pope-francis-abortion-priests.html?_r=0

While firmly restating his opposition to abortion as “a grave sin, since it puts an end to an innocent life,” the pope affirmed that “there is no sin that God’s mercy cannot reach and wipe away when it finds a repentant heart seeking to be reconciled with the Father.” The document, an apostolic letter, was signed on Sunday after a Mass denoting the end of the jubilee year. It was made public on Monday.
. . .

Under canon law, abortion brings automatic excommunication unless the person receiving or performing it confesses and receives absolution. Abortion is considered a “reserved sin,” meaning that permission to grant forgiveness usually must come from a bishop.

Thus, abortion itself brings about excommunication UNLESS absolution is given. Support for abortion does not.

+1,000,000

Meh, who cares. My mom loves the Catholic church. Loves going to church, volunteering at the church, visiting other churches, and loves her rosary, prayer, the whole nine. She is prochoice and pro BC and used BC for years until she got her tubes tied. Oh, and she doesn't believe in hell either.

Not once has anyone taken away her rosary, banned her from praying, banned her from the church, not let her confess, not let her volunteer, etc. Soooo stupid.

And there is a very active group called Catholics for Choice and they don't believe the Catholic faith is against abortion. Broaden your mind. This is why studies have shown the religious right have low intelligence.

Which faith do you adhere to, if any?
FYI, so called "cafeteria Catholics" generally don't share with their parish priests their views which are in opposition to the Church teachings.

[Anonymous]

Zygotes. Embryos. Inconvenient. Wrong timing. My right to choose to get rid of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you sitting in judgment are pathetic.

Unless you are there to raise those children, provide for them, and support policies that provide the things you aren't willing to do (parental leave, healthcare for children, reasonably priced health care, etc.) you have no right -NONE- to sit in judgment of someone else who has chosen a path you would not. There are LOADS of kids languishing in foster care. Put your money where your vicious mouths are and get involved with those kids who are here and who have no consistent source of love and little advantages.

Is a heartbeat alone life? Maybe. But, it's not a human viable of living outside the womb at 6 weeks. And, that life is second to the woman. Period. It it regrettable, yes. But, again, you folks are generally the ones who also object to free and ready access to health care b/c it offends your delicate sensitivities. You're hypocrites. You're sanctimonious. You're judgmental. You're disgusting.

this doesn't make any sense. It is like saying the lives of the poor are worthless. If you are not middle class, then your life isn't worth living? You can not believe this. It is not better to not have lived at all than to have lived hungry and poor.

And what you seem to be saying is that the lives of women are worth less than the lives of the embryos in their uterus and that the state gets to force them to be hostages to those embryos.

Your statement describing being hostage to an embryo is so very different from my perspective. I can see why we're miles apart on the abortion issue.

Congratulations on never having had a difficult pregnancy, or one that threatened your job, your education, or your financial future. Not everyone can be so lucky.

I posted on the Republicans are mean thread that it seemed to me conservatives lacked the ability to imagine the difficult situations others find themselves in and therefore can't empathize very well. This is a prime example. I love my kids more than anything, tried for years to get pregnant and cherished each of my pregnancies. But I can imagine the terror someone could feel at facing an unwanted pregnancy or one that isn't going to bring a live, healthy child into the world and would never, ever deny that person the right to make her own decisions regarding her future.

I am an Independent that leans conservative and think you are correct that Republicans are less likely to put themselves in the shoes of others less fortunate. They do see things in more black and white while liberals see more shades of gray. That doesn't mean they don't care about other people though. I have a pretty evenly divided mix of liberal and conservative friends and the conservatives donate far more money, time and resources than my liberal friends. That's anecdotal of course but in my experience conservatives aren't cold-hearted uncharitable people. Going back to the abortion issue, a conservative sees abortion as murder. Plain and simple. So while all these old male legislators may have no idea what it is like to be a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, they also can't get past the fact that they see the act as murder. I see both sides that's why it is such a tough call. What I do adamantly believe in though is easy access to birth control. I don't think it's right for Republicans to be anti-abortion and anti-birth control at the same time.

I'm the poster who said I don't view pregnancy as being hostage to an embryo. On a personal basis, I do know the feelings that can arise from having an unplanned pregnancy and am not unsympathetic to women who are in tough circumstances. It's just that I also hold the view that women should protect the growing life that they helped conceive. I do very much agree with your recommendation re easy access to birth control for all men and women.

You do know, don't you?, that the logical extension of the idea that life must be protected from the moment of conception means that all of the most effective forms of birth control are considered by pro-lifers to potentially cause abortion -- all birth control pills, all iuds, all hormonal contraception, all emergency contraception and mifepristone (abortion medication). Any hormonally-based contraception is considered to cause "chemical abortion". Although there is no conclusive scientific proof that hormonal contraception causes the death of fertilized eggs, pro-lifers see it as abortion and think these forms of birth control should be illegal as well.

So, really, the only permissible pro-life forms of birth control are barrier methods, spermicides, natural/withdrawal or abstinence. All of which (except abstinence) have 10-20% failure rates or higher.

So, in this context, I'm not really sure how valuable "easy access to birth control" is when really it means "access to the least effective forms of contraception only."

As a parent who had an accidental pregnancy while using a diaphragm and spermicide (about 80% efficacy -- if only I had known!), I am very concerned about my daughter's future contraceptive options.

I do not see why you include the pill as those that we lose when we go to the "logical conclusion". some nut cases do do that, but it doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If fertilized embryo is a person bye bye IVF.

This would make an incredible sci-fi movie plot... Alt Right government takes over all IVF clinics and orders EVERY SINGLE FROZEN EMBRYO brought to life using surrogates. These children are raised in a government-military esq compound and used as weapons for the alt right as "savior babies".

Seriously, this is relevant. If people really want to base a "right to life" on "being a person" AND hold that an embryo is a person, then those frozen embryos have exactly as much right to life.

No, they don't. As any reasonable person with an understanding of basic biology (not many people in this discussion, unfortunately) knows, it takes three things to create life: A sperm, an Egg and a Host in which to grow the life. "Frozen Embryos" do not have a host to give them life.

Any person who knows anything about biology knows that a 4 week old cluster of cells isn't "a human" who can be murdered and yet this foolish argument is brought up in every abortion argument.

Exactly when does the little life get to be termed "human" in your book?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you sitting in judgment are pathetic.

Unless you are there to raise those children, provide for them, and support policies that provide the things you aren't willing to do (parental leave, healthcare for children, reasonably priced health care, etc.) you have no right -NONE- to sit in judgment of someone else who has chosen a path you would not. There are LOADS of kids languishing in foster care. Put your money where your vicious mouths are and get involved with those kids who are here and who have no consistent source of love and little advantages.

Is a heartbeat alone life? Maybe. But, it's not a human viable of living outside the womb at 6 weeks. And, that life is second to the woman. Period. It it regrettable, yes. But, again, you folks are generally the ones who also object to free and ready access to health care b/c it offends your delicate sensitivities. You're hypocrites. You're sanctimonious. You're judgmental. You're disgusting.

this doesn't make any sense. It is like saying the lives of the poor are worthless. If you are not middle class, then your life isn't worth living? You can not believe this. It is not better to not have lived at all than to have lived hungry and poor.

And what you seem to be saying is that the lives of women are worth less than the lives of the embryos in their uterus and that the state gets to force them to be hostages to those embryos.

Your statement describing being hostage to an embryo is so very different from my perspective. I can see why we're miles apart on the abortion issue.

Congratulations on never having had a difficult pregnancy, or one that threatened your job, your education, or your financial future. Not everyone can be so lucky.

I posted on the Republicans are mean thread that it seemed to me conservatives lacked the ability to imagine the difficult situations others find themselves in and therefore can't empathize very well. This is a prime example. I love my kids more than anything, tried for years to get pregnant and cherished each of my pregnancies. But I can imagine the terror someone could feel at facing an unwanted pregnancy or one that isn't going to bring a live, healthy child into the world and would never, ever deny that person the right to make her own decisions regarding her future.

I am an Independent that leans conservative and think you are correct that Republicans are less likely to put themselves in the shoes of others less fortunate. They do see things in more black and white while liberals see more shades of gray. That doesn't mean they don't care about other people though. I have a pretty evenly divided mix of liberal and conservative friends and the conservatives donate far more money, time and resources than my liberal friends. That's anecdotal of course but in my experience conservatives aren't cold-hearted uncharitable people. Going back to the abortion issue, a conservative sees abortion as murder. Plain and simple. So while all these old male legislators may have no idea what it is like to be a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, they also can't get past the fact that they see the act as murder. I see both sides that's why it is such a tough call. What I do adamantly believe in though is easy access to birth control. I don't think it's right for Republicans to be anti-abortion and anti-birth control at the same time.

I'm the poster who said I don't view pregnancy as being hostage to an embryo. On a personal basis, I do know the feelings that can arise from having an unplanned pregnancy and am not unsympathetic to women who are in tough circumstances. It's just that I also hold the view that women should protect the growing life that they helped conceive. I do very much agree with your recommendation re easy access to birth control for all men and women.

You do know, don't you?, that the logical extension of the idea that life must be protected from the moment of conception means that all of the most effective forms of birth control are considered by pro-lifers to potentially cause abortion -- all birth control pills, all iuds, all hormonal contraception, all emergency contraception and mifepristone (abortion medication). Any hormonally-based contraception is considered to cause "chemical abortion". Although there is no conclusive scientific proof that hormonal contraception causes the death of fertilized eggs, pro-lifers see it as abortion and think these forms of birth control should be illegal as well.

So, really, the only permissible pro-life forms of birth control are barrier methods, spermicides, natural/withdrawal or abstinence. All of which (except abstinence) have 10-20% failure rates or higher.

So, in this context, I'm not really sure how valuable "easy access to birth control" is when really it means "access to the least effective forms of contraception only."

As a parent who had an accidental pregnancy while using a diaphragm and spermicide (about 80% efficacy -- if only I had known!), I am very concerned about my daughter's future contraceptive options.

I do not see why you include the pill as those that we lose when we go to the "logical conclusion". some nut cases do do that, but it doesn't make sense.

"Some nut cases" are writing legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Should everyone get free birth control?

Yes, of course they should. Study after study shows it makes much more sense economically. However, it will never happen here since righties only see it as encouraging women to be tramps.

[Anonymous]

I haven't read all the posts but I do think it is appropriate to look again at abortion. Honestly I would hope even the most liberal would agree that after the first trimester it is time to outlaw abortion. Most genetic tests are done very early and if you account for health of the mother etc then after first trimester should be the law of the land. I also understand the heartbeat theory but seems as there will not be broad acceptance of that. I am tired though of hearing people call a baby that can be delivered alive at 20 weeks a fetus. Come on..you know it is a baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am tired though of hearing people call a baby that can be delivered alive at 20 weeks a fetus. Come on..you know it is a baby.

20 weeks is well before viability. There is no -- and I mean, absolutely no case, ever, worldwide -- 20 week old fetus that was delivered at that gestational age and survived.

If you do not know this basic fact, you have no business expressing your "tired of hearing opinions" on a message board.

Have you cared for a 22/23-week preemie infant? I have. Dating is hard at that age. Life is even harder.

It was my responsibility to rub nitroglycerin into the toes that were going gangrenous from the umbilical line. 357 grams. Tinier than my hand, and the skin was shredding off under my fingers. We finally made the parents be there for cares, so they could see what was happening from what they insisted we do for this creature. They didn't want to have to see it, just know that "we did everything possible." Thank you for making me a torturer so your conscience is soothed.

A 22 weeker is much different than a 24 weeker, and is much more different than 26 weeks. 20 weeks is far outside the pale, and yeah, it's a fetus, not a baby.

You know what I am fucking tired of? I am tired of people expressing opinions without bothering to check their facts. If this is so important to you, then you'd get the facts of the matter straight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am tired though of hearing people call a baby that can be delivered alive at 20 weeks a fetus. Come on..you know it is a baby.

20 weeks is well before viability. There is no -- and I mean, absolutely no case, ever, worldwide -- 20 week old fetus that was delivered at that gestational age and survived.

If you do not know this basic fact, you have no business expressing your "tired of hearing opinions" on a message board.

Have you cared for a 22/23-week preemie infant? I have. Dating is hard at that age. Life is even harder.

It was my responsibility to rub nitroglycerin into the toes that were going gangrenous from the umbilical line. 357 grams. Tinier than my hand, and the skin was shredding off under my fingers. We finally made the parents be there for cares, so they could see what was happening from what they insisted we do for this creature. They didn't want to have to see it, just know that "we did everything possible." Thank you for making me a torturer so your conscience is soothed.

A 22 weeker is much different than a 24 weeker, and is much more different than 26 weeks. 20 weeks is far outside the pale, and yeah, it's a fetus, not a baby.

You know what I am fucking tired of? I am tired of people expressing opinions without bothering to check their facts. If this is so important to you, then you'd get the facts of the matter straight.

Thank you for your post. I too am shocked at the number of people who post without an understanding of the basic biology of reproduction, pregnancy, childbirth and neonatal survival and care.

To add to your facts above, I'd like to say that the end of the first trimester is 12 weeks. Most major genetic screening hasn't occurred because negative genetic screen results aren't dispositive; they require follow up with amniocentesis which doesn't happen until 15-20 weeks. Even genetic testing, amnio and ultrasound aren't perfect. My SIL (and her pro-life husband) found out in the 3rd trimester that their first baby was anencephalic and sought an abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am tired though of hearing people call a baby that can be delivered alive at 20 weeks a fetus. Come on..you know it is a baby.

20 weeks is well before viability. There is no -- and I mean, absolutely no case, ever, worldwide -- 20 week old fetus that was delivered at that gestational age and survived.

If you do not know this basic fact, you have no business expressing your "tired of hearing opinions" on a message board.

Have you cared for a 22/23-week preemie infant? I have. Dating is hard at that age. Life is even harder.

It was my responsibility to rub nitroglycerin into the toes that were going gangrenous from the umbilical line. 357 grams. Tinier than my hand, and the skin was shredding off under my fingers. We finally made the parents be there for cares, so they could see what was happening from what they insisted we do for this creature. They didn't want to have to see it, just know that "we did everything possible." Thank you for making me a torturer so your conscience is soothed.

A 22 weeker is much different than a 24 weeker, and is much more different than 26 weeks. 20 weeks is far outside the pale, and yeah, it's a fetus, not a baby.

You know what I am fucking tired of? I am tired of people expressing opinions without bothering to check their facts. If this is so important to you, then you'd get the facts of the matter straight.

Can you get another job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all the posts but I do think it is appropriate to look again at abortion. Honestly I would hope even the most liberal would agree that after the first trimester it is time to outlaw abortion. Most genetic tests are done very early and if you account for health of the mother etc then after first trimester should be the law of the land. I also understand the heartbeat theory but seems as there will not be broad acceptance of that. I am tired though of hearing people call a baby that can be delivered alive at 20 weeks a fetus. Come on..you know it is a baby.

20 weeks is not possible. 20 weeks is a fetus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^Cite please for the pope saying that!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/world/europe/pope-francis-abortion-priests.html?_r=0

While firmly restating his opposition to abortion as “a grave sin, since it puts an end to an innocent life,” the pope affirmed that “there is no sin that God’s mercy cannot reach and wipe away when it finds a repentant heart seeking to be reconciled with the Father.” The document, an apostolic letter, was signed on Sunday after a Mass denoting the end of the jubilee year. It was made public on Monday.
. . .

Under canon law, abortion brings automatic excommunication unless the person receiving or performing it confesses and receives absolution. Abortion is considered a “reserved sin,” meaning that permission to grant forgiveness usually must come from a bishop.

Thus, abortion itself brings about excommunication UNLESS absolution is given. Support for abortion does not.

+1,000,000

Meh, who cares. My mom loves the Catholic church. Loves going to church, volunteering at the church, visiting other churches, and loves her rosary, prayer, the whole nine. She is prochoice and pro BC and used BC for years until she got her tubes tied. Oh, and she doesn't believe in hell either.

Not once has anyone taken away her rosary, banned her from praying, banned her from the church, not let her confess, not let her volunteer, etc. Soooo stupid.

And there is a very active group called Catholics for Choice and they don't believe the Catholic faith is against abortion. Broaden your mind. This is why studies have shown the religious right have low intelligence.

Which faith do you adhere to, if any?
FYI, so called "cafeteria Catholics" generally don't share with their parish priests their views which are in opposition to the Church teachings.

Point is the Catholic Church is becoming less and less relevant to more people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all the posts but I do think it is appropriate to look again at abortion. Honestly I would hope even the most liberal would agree that after the first trimester it is time to outlaw abortion. Most genetic tests are done very early and if you account for health of the mother etc then after first trimester should be the law of the land. I also understand the heartbeat theory but seems as there will not be broad acceptance of that. I am tired though of hearing people call a baby that can be delivered alive at 20 weeks a fetus. Come on..you know it is a baby.

20 weeks is not possible. 20 weeks is a fetus.

23 weeks is viable. Do you use the word baby at 23 weeks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am tired though of hearing people call a baby that can be delivered alive at 20 weeks a fetus. Come on..you know it is a baby.

20 weeks is well before viability. There is no -- and I mean, absolutely no case, ever, worldwide -- 20 week old fetus that was delivered at that gestational age and survived.

If you do not know this basic fact, you have no business expressing your "tired of hearing opinions" on a message board.

Have you cared for a 22/23-week preemie infant? I have. Dating is hard at that age. Life is even harder.

It was my responsibility to rub nitroglycerin into the toes that were going gangrenous from the umbilical line. 357 grams. Tinier than my hand, and the skin was shredding off under my fingers. We finally made the parents be there for cares, so they could see what was happening from what they insisted we do for this creature. They didn't want to have to see it, just know that "we did everything possible." Thank you for making me a torturer so your conscience is soothed.

A 22 weeker is much different than a 24 weeker, and is much more different than 26 weeks. 20 weeks is far outside the pale, and yeah, it's a fetus, not a baby.

You know what I am fucking tired of? I am tired of people expressing opinions without bothering to check their facts. If this is so important to you, then you'd get the facts of the matter straight.

Can you get another job?

Why should she? A NICU nurse (I'm assuming nurse because the neonatologists were never involved in our children's care like the nurses were) cares for many besides micropreemies - any term baby who needs serious care (like mine did) goes to the NICU. I'm very grateful for the wonderful nurses who cared for our babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all the posts but I do think it is appropriate to look again at abortion. Honestly I would hope even the most liberal would agree that after the first trimester it is time to outlaw abortion. Most genetic tests are done very early and if you account for health of the mother etc then after first trimester should be the law of the land. I also understand the heartbeat theory but seems as there will not be broad acceptance of that. I am tired though of hearing people call a baby that can be delivered alive at 20 weeks a fetus. Come on..you know it is a baby.

20 weeks is not possible. 20 weeks is a fetus.

Can survive at 22 weeks... that's just 2 weeks later,...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/health/premature-babies-22-weeks-viability-study.html?_r=0