• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ohio considers total ban on abortion and death penalty for women or doctors found guilty

Tom Horn said:
you assumed I’m “ pro-life “. When I’m not. So I will take that as your party affiliation. Which is communistic in principal and genocidal in practice.
Click to expand...

Um, I'm not a member of any party,Democrat, Republican,Communist or Genocide.

And again, abortion doesn't kill babies.

*chuckle*
 
TheGoverness said:
What the hell.
Click to expand...

Every R run state I've lived in has those whacked bills introduced periodically. I don't know if one has ever become law. I checked, and here's one out of Tejas.

Texas Personhood

These nuts never really think through the ramifications of this nonsense. It's pure emotion, which is what they accuse the left of...:roll:

Talibangicals.
 
Crovax said:
It really hasnt been challenged at the SCOTUS, but I do notice a trend that whenever a person can not defend their position they claims its settled in an attempt to stifle discussion about it.

No matter your position on abortion the legal justification for it is very shaky. I doubt many on either side have read the opinion.

There is no right to abortion. There is a right to privacy between a person and their doctor to prescribe a medically valid treatment. Sound simple enough?

Well that only apparently applies to a womans vagina since it has only ever been upheld in 2 situations, abortion and a contraceptive pill. Why wouldnt it also apply to medical marijuana, non FDA approved drugs for terminal patients, or even assisted suicide?

RBG even said that in an interview, "Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

All the "reproductive rights" and "self-determination" mumbo jumbo is just that

Also interesting is that the roe opinion makes it clear that the SCOTUS does not endorse the "unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases" opinion of a right to general privacy
Click to expand...

They have to draw a line somewhere, and Roe and subsequent cases have put it at viability. "Conception" is a process, not an instantaneous event, so where do these bills draw that line? What of miscarriage?
 
Ohio... making news for all the wrong reasons.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
They have to draw a line somewhere, and Roe and subsequent cases have put it at viability. "Conception" is a process, not an instantaneous event, so where do these bills draw that line? What of miscarriage?
Click to expand...

Indeed. Nature is the biggest abortion provider by far--something like 50% of all pregnancies. Yet pro-lifers don't seem upset about this. Hmmm
 
rocket88 said:
Well, as we all know, abortion is illegal now because Kavanaugh was confirmed. At least if you listen to the buffers on both sides.
Click to expand...

Bunch of drooling nonsense. RvW won't be overturned.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
They have to draw a line somewhere, and Roe and subsequent cases have put it at viability. "Conception" is a process, not an instantaneous event, so where do these bills draw that line? What of miscarriage?
Click to expand...

You are getting into something more, I was only pointing out why roe was a poor legal decision. I wasnt inherently arguing for or against. I havent read the Ohio bill but I expect that its not a good one and I also expect that the media is blowing it out of proportion.

I would say that viability is just as fluid as conception. However I expect it to be a moot point in the next few decades anyways as the technology improves and viability and conception become very close together
 
<alt>doxygen said:
They have to draw a line somewhere, and Roe and subsequent cases have put it at viability. "Conception" is a process, not an instantaneous event, so where do these bills draw that line? What of miscarriage?
Click to expand...

I really don't understand why people bring up "miscarriage" when it comes to this kind of thing, other than to intentionally muddy the waters.

Can you find anyone who's opposed to abortion who considers miscarriage -- an entirely involuntary act -- equivalent to abortion, an entirely voluntary act?

Can you find anyone who wants to "outlaw" still births, or punish anyone for it? 'Coz that would be the same thing as infanticide, following your reasoning here.

People around here insist that "pro-lifers" are "dishonest," but this is a profoundly dishonest thing I see constantly from the other side.
 
Suburban Jedi said:
Nobody is killing babies.

An acorn is not an oak tree. An embryo is not a person
Click to expand...

Disgusting. According to that logic you could abort a fully grown fetus that is actually past it's due date, because it is not officially a person until it is born.
 
Crovax said:
Neither is a dog or a tree but they are often lawfully protected from wanton destruction
Click to expand...

My local is strongly considering having an animal abuse registry, similar to a sex abuse registry.
 
Moderate Right said:
Disgusting. According to that logic you could abort a fully grown fetus that is actually past it's due date, because it is not officially a person until it is born.
Click to expand...

An acorn,with its constituent cotyledon and plumule is biologically classified as an embryo. It is POTENTIALLY an oak tree, but is not in ACTUALITY an oak tree.
An embryo in utero is an embryo. It is POTENTIALLY a human being, but is not in ACTUALITY a human being.

A Fetus at term is no longer POTENTIALLY a Human Being,but is in ACTUALITY a human being
 
Harshaw said:
I really don't understand why people bring up "miscarriage" when it comes to this kind of thing, other than to intentionally muddy the waters.

Can you find anyone who's opposed to abortion who considers miscarriage -- an entirely involuntary act -- equivalent to abortion, an entirely voluntary act?

Can you find anyone who wants to "outlaw" still births, or punish anyone for it? 'Coz that would be the same thing as infanticide, following your reasoning here.

People around here insist that "pro-lifers" are "dishonest," but this is a profoundly dishonest thing I see constantly from the other side.
Click to expand...

I'm in a bit of a hurry, but here's a Virginia attempt at this stuff. It got tosses because the super smart minds that wrote it (one almost became state AG) couldn't figure out how to make "personhood" (rights) start at conception without potentially criminalizing miscarriage. Maybe you could help them rewrite it.

R's in VA tried this at least twice, and I only lived there a few years.

Virginia: Have a Miscarriage, Go to Jail - TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime

I'd find a non-left wing link if I had more time - sorry.
 
Maybe those great minds can resolve the disconnect between pro-life and the death penalty.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I'm in a bit of a hurry, but here's a Virginia attempt at this stuff. It got tosses because the super smart minds that wrote it (one almost became state AG) couldn't figure out how to make "personhood" (rights) start at conception without potentially criminalizing miscarriage. Maybe you could help them rewrite it.

R's in VA tried this at least twice, and I only lived there a few years.

Virginia: Have a Miscarriage, Go to Jail - TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime

I'd find a non-left wing link if I had more time - sorry.
Click to expand...

It's a very easy distinction to make, and I already told you what it is.

Miscarriage is entirely involuntary.

Abortion is entirely voluntary.

It doesn't matter what "side" you're on; that should be clear enough.

By the way, the bill at your link did not seek to outlaw miscarriage, and it doesn't take a deep reading to understand that.
 
Why, why, why, why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to **** in the first place, huh? Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're ****ed.
Click to expand...
George Carlin.
 
Suburban Jedi said:
An acorn,with its constituent cotyledon and plumule is biologically classified as an embryo. It is POTENTIALLY an oak tree, but is not in ACTUALITY an oak tree.
An embryo in utero is an embryo. It is POTENTIALLY a human being, but is not in ACTUALITY a human being.

A Fetus at term is no longer POTENTIALLY a Human Being,but is in ACTUALITY a human being
Click to expand...

But but but an acorn is an acorn is an acorn. A fetus is a fetus is a fetus. If the fetus hasn't been born then it is not a person, therefore you can off with it's head.
 
1751Texan said:
I think the thought process is....is that Ohio by passing a person hood legislation, can ban abortions. This would be an Ohio ban.
Click to expand...

Well, first off, this is being considered, not officially signed into law. I don't see how the law would pass muster and I am pro-life.
 
Harshaw said:
It's a very easy distinction to make, and I already told you what it is.

Miscarriage is entirely involuntary.

Abortion is entirely voluntary.

It doesn't matter what "side" you're on; that should be clear enough.

By the way, the bill at your link did not seek to outlaw miscarriage, and it doesn't take a deep reading to understand that.
Click to expand...

It declared that, from conception, all "persons" have a full set of constitutional rights. That is absurd (a zef can't "arm" itself), but that's what the law said. If it wasn't crazy, maybe you can explain why it was dropped.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/586

Summary: H.R.586 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)All Information (Except Text)
There is one summary for H.R.586. Bill summaries are authored by CRS.

Shown Here:
Introduced in House (01/17/2017)
Sanctity of Human Life Act

This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom