'Heartbeat bill' abortion ban clears Ohio House. Oh LoLhio

Originally posted by Robtard
Seems far to limiting and extreme in telling women what they can and can not do with their own bodies and events that will have a massive impact on their lives. I'd personally hate it if someone tried to have a similar control over my person.

I also imagine laws like yours would send women back to seeking "back alley" abortions, which can still be very dangerous, depending. So personally, I hope as a nation we never go back to that.

The difference in our opinion is that I feel that it isn't just their body anymore. The child should have as much a right to its body/life as they do.

It's basically a risking a woman's health/affecting futures.

Vs

Killing a child.

For a choice the woman made and where the child had no choice.

It's a shitty choice, I know, but I would rather go for the lesser of the two evils from my perspective.

As for back alley abortions, not much we can do about that. After all, it is choice of the person to risk their health in acts that violate the law. Perhaps if we funnel money going to PP to improve sex ed (and make contraceptions even more accesible), make adoptions more accessible/a better choice we can reduce the numbers here.

I'm not claiming I have the answers but the question was what I wanted from a personal standpoint.

Edit. Fortunately, for everyone, as technology improves, the abortion debate may well become obsolete. I am looking forward to that day.

Originally posted by Robtard
Seems far to limiting and extreme in telling women what they can and can not do with their own bodies and events that will have a massive impact on their lives. I'd personally hate it if someone tried to have a similar control over my person.

I also imagine laws like yours would send women back to seeking "back alley" abortions, which can still be very dangerous, depending. So personally, I hope as a nation we never go back to that.

Rob, you seem like a pretty conservative, logical dude. Why do you lean pro-choice (if I'm understanding correctly)?

Not trying to be confrontational or derail the thread, but medicine and science like embryology and even pro-abortion advocates have stated abortion is the taking of a life (http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/). That unborn baby is just as much human as you or I or a 2-year old or a 22-year old. If a woman chooses to have a "back-alley" abortion, that is murder as well.

New Longitudinal Study Confirms That Women Who Get Abortions Do Not Suffer Psychological Harm

Originally posted by John Murdoch
Rob, you seem like a pretty conservative, logical dude. Why do you lean pro-choice (if I'm understanding correctly)?

Not trying to be confrontational or derail the thread, but medicine and science like embryology and even pro-abortion advocates have stated abortion is the taking of a life (http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/). That unborn baby is just as much human as you or I or a 2-year old or a 22-year old. If a woman chooses to have a "back-alley" abortion, that is murder as well.

Because I feel the right to one's own body is something that other people should have little to no say in.

No worries at all, feel free to give your points intelligently, it's welcome. Studies I've seen point to viability outside the womb being around 24 weeks(with outside medical aid of course). Sure there have been exceptions, just as even older babies (24+ weeks) have died outside the womb with medical support. So the 24 week limit seems to a sensible stance between both sides of the argument.

I take issue with your "if a woman chooses" in regards to back-alley abortions, if you take away a woman's rights/options, you're also in a sense dictating her future actions. Look at it this way, if through my actions I put you in a state of poverty/starvation and you "choose" to steal to feed yourself as that's the only option you see as survival, am I not in turn responsible as well?

Originally posted by Robtard
Look at it this way, if through my actions I put you in a state of poverty/starvation and you "choose" to steal to feed yourself as that's the only option you see as survival, am I not in turn responsible as well?

Depends on exactly what kind of actions you are talking about that put this person into poverty. Did you personally burn their house down or get them fired from their job?

It's okay man, take a bit of time to think about the specifics.

Originally posted by Robtard
Because I feel the right to one's own body is something that other people should have little to no say in.

No worries at all, feel free to give your points intelligently, it's welcome. Studies I've seen point to viability outside the womb being around 24 weeks(with outside medical aid of course). Sure there have been exceptions, just as even older babies (24+ weeks) have died outside the womb with medical support. So the 24 week limit seems to a sensible stance between both sides of the argument.

I take issue with your "if a woman chooses" in regards to back-alley abortions, if you take away a woman's rights/options, you're also in a sense dictating her future actions. Look at it this way, if through my actions I put you in a state of poverty/starvation and you "choose" to steal to feed yourself as that's the only option you see as survival, am I not in turn responsible as well?

Originally posted by Surtur
Depends on exactly what kind of actions you are talking about that put this person into poverty. Did you personally burn their house down or get them fired from their job?

Although you would be responsible to an extent, it would not excuse my stealing, as that is still a crime that negatively effects another. Say you use this analogy in the case of abortion: a father abandons a woman he impregnates. The woman in questions should not be able to end the life of another human being regardless of the predicament in which she finds herself.

In the case of rape, the evidence still remains that the unborn are
still human.

http://afterabortion.org/2004/rape-incest-and-abortion-searching-beyond-the-myths-3/

Originally posted by Robtard
Because I feel the right to one's own body is something that other people should have little to no say in.

No worries at all, feel free to give your points intelligently, it's welcome. Studies I've seen point to viability outside the womb being around 24 weeks(with outside medical aid of course). Sure there have been exceptions, just as even older babies (24+ weeks) have died outside the womb with medical support. So the 24 week limit seems to a sensible stance between both sides of the argument.

I take issue with your "if a woman chooses" in regards to back-alley abortions, if you take away a woman's rights/options, you're also in a sense dictating her future actions. Look at it this way, if through my actions I put you in a state of poverty/starvation and you "choose" to steal to feed yourself as that's the only option you see as survival, am I not in turn responsible as well?

There is always a choice. Let the child live or try and illegally kill a child using illegal means (if such choice becomes made illegal). What "dictated" her choice is the perception that she would be much better off with the latter choice.

I find your analogy faulty, tbh. Hunger/the need to eat is a basic human physiological need. Non-pregnancy is not. You will 100% die from not eating. And if there is a strong risk of dying during pregnancy, then an abortion should be allowable (abortion via medical necessity). Fair enough, isn't it?

Originally posted by John Murdoch
Although you would be responsible to an extent, it would not excuse my stealing, as that is still a crime that negatively effects another. Say you use this analogy in the case of abortion: a father abandons a woman he impregnates. The woman in questions should not be able to end the life of another human being regardless of the predicament in which she finds herself.

In the case of rape, the evidence still remains that the unborn are
still human.

http://afterabortion.org/2004/rape-incest-and-abortion-searching-beyond-the-myths-3/

Exactly, there is no excuse for stealing or violence, and I'm tired of people playing the poverty card as a reason.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
There is always a choice. Let the child live or try and illegally kill a child using illegal means (if such choice becomes made illegal). What "dictated" her choice is the perception that she would be much better off with the latter choice.

I find your analogy faulty, tbh. Hunger/the need to eat is a basic human physiological need. Non-pregnancy is not. You will 100% die from not eating. And if there is a strong risk of dying during pregnancy, then an abortion should be allowable (abortion via medical necessity). Fair enough, isn't it?

Agreed, and yes the pro-choice side really pushes that "perception": you are better off ending a baby's life than having a baby. The choice in pro-choice never looks at all the wonderful benefits of having a child, even if having a child is a struggle.

Originally posted by Surtur
Exactly, there is no excuse for stealing or violence, and I'm tired of people playing the poverty card as a reason.

Agreed, it ain't ever right to do wrong.

Originally posted by John Murdoch
Agreed, and yes the pro-choice side really pushes that "perception": you are better off ending a baby's life than having a baby. The choice in pro-choice never looks at all the wonderful benefits of having a child, even if having a child is a struggle.

How the **** would you know? When was the last time you were forced to carry a pregnancy to term?

Just because he can't give birth doesn't mean he can't comment on the benefits of having a child. Since by "having" he obviously meant being a parent, not the actual act of giving birth.

Though don't get me wrong I think children are horrible little creatures.

Originally posted by Surtur
Just because he can't give birth doesn't mean he can't comment on the benefits of having a child. Since by "having" he obviously meant being a parent, not the actual act of giving birth.

Though don't get me wrong I think children are horrible little creatures.

He is clearly contrasting the benefits of having a baby with terminating a pregnancy:

Originally posted by John Murdoch
Agreed, and yes the pro-choice side really pushes that "perception": you are better off ending a baby's life than having a baby.

Originally posted by John Murdoch
Agreed, and yes the pro-choice side really pushes that "perception": you are better off ending a baby's life than having a baby. The choice in pro-choice never looks at all the wonderful benefits of having a child, even if having a child is a struggle.

I have yet to see that. Can you give some examples?