Proposed Ohio Abortion Ban Hinges on Heartbeat

[_Simpson_ 250]

It only has to happen that way if you feel it is ok to deceive people about what you are doing.

If you want a law that effectively ban abortion, be up front about it. Don't do it in a gutless way.

Oh this issue is being addressed on all the fronts.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not here it isnt

[_Simpson_ 250]

Not here it isnt

Be patient my young padawan.

[Amby 490]

I think I've lost my reading comprehension skills. I have no clue what's going on in here anymore.

[Peikko 1,575]

UNtil enough people support a "pro-life amendment" we are tasked with making laws people can agree on.

For many people, especially very early on, they don't see it as human life, These are questions best legislated on the state level.

That is not the issue at all. A woman is not an ignoramus who can somehow pretend a fetus isn't a potential human life just to get rid of it.

Pro life doesn't really address the issues of how a fetus under 16 weeks is directly dependent on the woman who carries it and the implications that has when a pregnancy simply isn't an option. Somehow that would magically never be a problem were abortion to be made illegal I guess, not very pragmatic or realistic..

Imagine how much of a reduction in abortion could be achieved if the pro-life lot put their energies into prevention rather than vindictive targeting of women and health professionals?

Edited February 10, 2011 by Madame Cleo

[Peikko 1,575]

I think I've lost my reading comprehension skills. I have no clue what's going on in here anymore.

Nothing new, the busy bodies want to play god as usual.

[rika60607 215]

Yes, you can get it by lying

But there is something wrong if you have to lie to be "safe", isn't there?

Why can't you get it in advance? All you have to do is tell them you had unprotected sex or the condom broke. The same way you get it after.

[Amby 490]

Yes, you can get it by lying

But there is something wrong if you have to lie to be "safe", isn't there?

I dunno. I never used the morning after pill. I think if you really do not want kids then you could have it just in case something happened. You could take it right away.

[slim 1,514]

How about if you want kids... you have to be over the poverty level for the number of family members you have, similar to what you must do to sponsor someone into this country?

[james&olya 1,121]

UNtil enough people support a "pro-life amendment" we are tasked with making laws people can agree on.

For many people, especially very early on, they don't see it as human life, These are questions best legislated on the state level.

The question is not 'life'. The egg is 'alive'. Sperm are 'alive'. Every time you blow your nose live cells fly out of your body!

The question is LEGAL personhood. If the fetus is legally defined as a person then laws can legitimately be enacted to protect it. Otherwise it is a MORAL issue and the government in a free country has no business trying to legislate a purely moral issue. That is the prerogative of the individual citizen to do.

[Danno 1,228]

The question is not 'life'. The egg is 'alive'. Sperm are 'alive'. Every time you blow your nose live cells fly out of your body!

The question is LEGAL personhood. If the fetus is legally defined as a person then laws can legitimately be enacted to protect it. Otherwise it is a MORAL issue and the government in a free country has no business trying to legislate a purely moral issue. That is the prerogative of the individual citizen to do.

Again you are wrong on the most basic things.

The Govt does control "moral issues".

If not, you could masturbate on the park bench.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Pro life doesn't really address the issues of how a fetus under 16 weeks is directly dependent on the woman who carries it and the implications that has when a pregnancy simply isn't an option.

Where do you draw the line MC? Birth?

Somehow that would magically never be a problem were abortion to be made illegal I guess, not very pragmatic or realistic..

Imagine how much of a reduction in abortion could be achieved if the pro-life lot put their energies into prevention rather than vindictive targeting of women and health professionals?

What sort of prevention matters are you referring to?

[james&olya 1,121]

Again you are wrong on the most basic things.

The Govt does control "moral issues".

If not, you could masturbate on the park bench.

No Danno, you are the one who is wrong. Your masturbating on the park bench is illegal, not because it is immoral to some, but because society has agreed it is offensive, just like driving your car without a muffler is offensive!

Many things are both illegal and immoral. But the issue of legality is separate from the issue of morality. The former is based on rights and what is considered to be legitimate functions of government under our constitution. The latter is personal and based on whatever the individual finds relevant, often heavily influenced by their choice of religion. Since the fetus is not defined as a 'person' under the law, a woman's right to privacy trumps society's interest in protecting the POTENTIAL personhood of the fetus. If the fetus is legally defined as a person, then government has a duty to protect it, not only from abortion, but from assaults such as maternal smoking, drug use, etc.

[chri'stina 190]

No Danno, you are the one who is wrong. Your masturbating on the park bench is illegal, not because it is immoral to some, but because society has agreed it is offensive, just like driving your car without a muffler is offensive!

Many things are both illegal and immoral. But the issue of legality is separate from the issue of morality. The former is based on rights and what is considered to be legitimate functions of government under our constitution. The latter is personal and based on whatever the individual finds relevant, often heavily influenced by their choice of religion. Since the fetus is not defined as a 'person' under the law, a woman's right to privacy trumps society's interest in protecting the POTENTIAL personhood of the fetus. If the fetus is legally defined as a person, then government has a duty to protect it, not only from abortion, but from assaults such as maternal smoking, drug use, etc.

How is the bench situation not a morality based law? Yeah most people would find that offensive and disturbing but that seems to stem from morally thinking it's wrong for someone to do that publicly. I am sure some (nasty) people out there don't think it's offensive. While a loud car is offensive to someone's ears and more a physical annoyance than anything moral.

[sandinista! 1,816]

There's been numerous cases over the years though of women being prosecuted for delivering drug affected infants, or having their newborn removed from their custody because they were under the influence of alcohol when they delivered. The American academy of pediatrics, AMA, march of dimes, etc, all oppose this though, it's been shown over and over to do more harm than good, and women just avoid prenatal care altogether, or avoid medical intervention when giving birth. Far too many people who claim to be on the side of protecting the unborn have a knack for making things worse for them instead.