Gov. John Kasich vetoes Heartbeat Bill, signs 20-week abortion ban

[TomSea]

@Idaho_Cowboy

Lol

His posts sound like they were made by someone very young.  I guess mom took too long heating up the Spaghettios, so while he was waiting he decided he was going to be all edgy and offensive and stuff.

I'm not sure if that is so much worse than someone who comes here per habit and is expounding on abortion in the 6th month of pregnancy, I think this is to offend and it can be trolled back.

In all due respect, I think this is only moral relativism, secular humanism and it can be responded back.

The current law (no abortions, with very limited exceptions, after viability) represents a compromise.   I've heard that viability is at approximately 26 weeks, but perhaps its a bit sooner in some cases.  Taking that down to 20 weeks may be Constitutional, but it too just represents a political compromise.  Convenience abortions will remain legal,  and it is mothers in more difficult situations that will be forced by the state to give birth.   

Abortion in the 6th month? France prohibits abortion after the 12th week, I think we are now being played in all this.

[Jazzhead]

I'm not sure if that is so much worse than someone who comes here per habit and is expounding on abortion in the 6th month of pregnancy, I think this is to offend and it can be trolled back.

Why the obsession with attacking the messenger?  The topic of this thread is late term abortion,  and Ohio's new law that will ban the procedure after 20 weeks rather than (approximately) 26 weeks.   Why is it "trolling" to address the consequences of this change?   

Late term abortions are rare, and almost never conducted for convenience.   They typically arise because of tragic circumstances, respecting the mother, the unborn child, or both.  Examples include the breakup of a relationship or the discovery of catastrophic fetal abnormalities.     Is it really the state's role to coerce childbirth in these circumstances, without regard to the details?   How do you justify such coercion as consistent with any conservative notion of the limited power of goverment?

On the other thread where you pillory me,  folks are outraged that the state would tell a business owner just who he can conduct business with.   In the name of individual liberty, of course,  you and others take the position that a store owner has no obligation to abide by nondiscrimination laws.   So why does a woman's liberty mean bupkis to you?    I have far more sympathy for a woman forced to give birth to a child with severe mental retardation,  or alone without family or partner support, than I do a baker obliged to bake a flippin' wedding cake.   Nine months of pregnancy and childbirth is a physical and emotional ordeal,  especially if the child is unwanted.   

It is fundamental to a woman's liberty to have autonomy over her own body,  to be able to make her own reproductive choices.   That doesn't mean she shouldn't be encouraged, by her family, friends and spiritual mentors to do the right thing,  to be provided with financial and emotional support to do so,  and to encourage adoption so an unwanted child can be part of a loving home.   I don't disagree with you that abortion is morally wrong in most circumstances.   But I profoundly disagree with you that a woman has no rights, no liberty, no choice in the matter, and must by edict of the state become an incubator for a child she is unwilling or unable to raise.     

Progress is, indeed, being made.  Abortion rates are down, significantly.   More women are using contraceptives, and successfully deciding for themselves when they are ready and able to be a good parent.   And even more progress can be made, I believe,  if the generations-long battle between pro-life and pro-choice could be transformed into a collaborative effort to ensure that every child is wanted.   That's difficult when folks of good will are denounced as baby killers merely for wanting abortion to be reduced by means other than government coercion.           

[txradioguy]

So where are the father's rights in all of this?  What if the mother wants to murder the baby because she can't be bothered with being pregnant...but the father doesn't believe in it and wants the baby?

It takes two to create a life...why does only one get to make the decision to terminate that life?

[Jazzhead]

So where are the father's rights in all of this?  What if the mother wants to murder the baby because she can't be bothered with being pregnant...but the father doesn't believe in it and wants the baby?

It takes two to create a life...why does only one get to make the decision to terminate that life?

I'm willing to listen to your argument to the contrary,  but it seems to me that the father ought to have no right whatsoever.  His work is done after seconds of pleasure;  the woman has nine hard months ahead of her.   After the birth, then the father's role begins - you're damn right that it takes two, and he should be obliged to support that child - or else keep his pants zipped.

  Besides, the fact pattern you describe is very atypical -  much more common is a woman being forced to get an abortion because the father wants no part of it. 

 

[txradioguy]

I'm willing to listen to your argument to the contrary,  but it seems to me that the father ought to have no right whatsoever.  His work is done after seconds of pleasure;  the woman has nine hard months ahead of her.   After the birth, then the father's role begins - you're damn right that it takes two, and he should be obliged to support that child - or else keep his pants zipped.

That is probably one of the most sexist and chauvinistic thoughts on the subject I've ever heard from a site that wasn't named DU or Daily Kos.

You are expressing everything that is wrong...Progressive and destructive of child raising today.  It's ALWAYS the mans fault...even when he's right.

And what if the situation is reversed...the guy doesn't want the child but she does.  Why should he be obligated to pay for a child he didn't want and has no say in?

If he should keep his pants zipped..she needs to keep her legs closed.  That sword cuts both ways.

If you truly agree with me that it takes two...then BOTH should be involved in the decision on whether to murder the baby in the womb or keep it.


 

Besides, the fact pattern you describe is very atypical -  much more common is a woman being forced to get an abortion because the father wants no part of it.

Atypical?  Hardly.  It's only atypical to someone who's been immersed in FemiNazi propaganda for the last 30 years.

You have a very twisted sense of how much involvement a pregnancy a typical man has from conception to birth.  And it's rather sad and shocking at the same time.

But to sit there and believe we're only needed for 30 seconds in the bedroom and then to open up our wallets for 18 years 9 months after the deed is done is effed up in ways I can't describe here without drawing the ire of the mods.

You need help.

[geronl]

I'm willing to listen to your argument to the contrary,  but it seems to me that the father ought to have no right whatsoever.  His work is done after seconds of pleasure;  the woman has nine hard months ahead of her.   After the birth, then the father's role begins - you're damn right that it takes two, and he should be obliged to support that child - or else keep his pants zipped.

The father should divorce the woman if she murders his baby.

[Jazzhead]

That is probably one of the most sexist and chauvinistic thoughts on the subject I've ever heard from a site that wasn't named DU or Daily Kos.

You are expressing everything that is wrong...Progressive and destructive of child raising today.  It's ALWAYS the mans fault...even when he's right.

And what if the situation is reversed...the guy doesn't want the child but she does.  Why should he be obligated to pay for a child he didn't want and has no say in?

If he should keep his pants zipped..she needs to keep her legs closed.  That sword cuts both ways.

If you truly agree with me that it takes two...then BOTH should be involved in the decision on whether to murder the baby in the womb or keep it.


 
Atypical?  Hardly.  It's only atypical to someone who's been immersed in FemiNazi propaganda for the last 30 years.

You have a very twisted sense of how much involvement a pregnancy a typical man has from conception to birth.  And it's rather sad and shocking at the same time.

But to sit there and believe we're only needed for 30 seconds in the bedroom and then to open up our wallets for 18 years 9 months after the deed is done is effed up in ways I can't describe here without drawing the ire of the mods.

You need help.

Stop hyperventilating, sir.  Of course the decision whether to have a child should be made mutually.  Of course there are lots of good dads.  But good dads aren't the norm when abortion is involved.  The topic at hand is the father's legal right to compel the mother to keep or abort a child.   The burden of pregnancy and childbirth is on the mother.   The father, far too often,  simply walks away.   

Now I'm willing to have a dialogue with you - note the first clause of my post above ("I'm willing to listen to your argument to the contrary").   So go ahead,  tell me what legal standard you propose.  Be specific, because a legal standard affects rights and obligations in the real world, and in the real world - when abortion is at issue - many fathers are irresponsible pieces of shit.  That's why the mother wants the abortion in the first place - the dad has gotten his ass out of Dodge.       

[Chosen Daughter]

Why the obsession with attacking the messenger?  The topic of this thread is late term abortion,  and Ohio's new law that will ban the procedure after 20 weeks rather than (approximately) 26 weeks.   Why is it "trolling" to address the consequences of this change?   

Late term abortions are rare, and almost never conducted for convenience.   They typically arise because of tragic circumstances, respecting the mother, the unborn child, or both.  Examples include the breakup of a relationship or the discovery of catastrophic fetal abnormalities.     Is it really the state's role to coerce childbirth in these circumstances, without regard to the details?   How do you justify such coercion as consistent with any conservative notion of the limited power of goverment?

On the other thread where you pillory me,  folks are outraged that the state would tell a business owner just who he can conduct business with.   In the name of individual liberty, of course,  you and others take the position that a store owner has no obligation to abide by nondiscrimination laws.   So why does a woman's liberty mean bupkis to you?    I have far more sympathy for a woman forced to give birth to a child with severe mental retardation,  or alone without family or partner support, than I do a baker obliged to bake a flippin' wedding cake.   Nine months of pregnancy and childbirth is a physical and emotional ordeal,  especially if the child is unwanted.   

It is fundamental to a woman's liberty to have autonomy over her own body,  to be able to make her own reproductive choices.   That doesn't mean she shouldn't be encouraged, by her family, friends and spiritual mentors to do the right thing,  to be provided with financial and emotional support to do so,  and to encourage adoption so an unwanted child can be part of a loving home.   I don't disagree with you that abortion is morally wrong in most circumstances.   But I profoundly disagree with you that a woman has no rights, no liberty, no choice in the matter, and must by edict of the state become an incubator for a child she is unwilling or unable to raise.     

Progress is, indeed, being made.  Abortion rates are down, significantly.   More women are using contraceptives, and successfully deciding for themselves when they are ready and able to be a good parent.   And even more progress can be made, I believe,  if the generations-long battle between pro-life and pro-choice could be transformed into a collaborative effort to ensure that every child is wanted.   That's difficult when folks of good will are denounced as baby killers merely for wanting abortion to be reduced by means other than government coercion.         

You believe that the breakup of a relationship is a reason to abort a fully formed human being?  Why don't you try going to youtube and watching a video of a 20 week child in the womb.  There are options like adoption. 

[txradioguy]

You believe that the breakup of a relationship is a reason to abort a fully formed human being?  Why don't you try going to youtube and watching a video of a 20 week child in the womb.  There are options like adoption.

That is what abortion supporters want to be able to abort.  That is a baby at 20 weeks...which is another term for the state of development the abortion supporter like to use since if they said 5 months it would turm people off to the idea.  5 months means the pregnancy is over half way done...20 weeks doesn't sound so bad.

 

[Jazzhead]

You believe that the breakup of a relationship is a reason to abort a fully formed human being?  Why don't you try going to youtube and watching a video of a 20 week child in the womb.  There are options like adoption.

No, that's not what I believe.  I believe the better option is adoption.  But I'm not a woman.  It's not my choice to make.  I'll try my darndest to convince her to carry the child, and support her if she does.   But in the end it's her body, her decision, and neither I nor the government should have the legal power to force her to do so.   

[Silver Pines]

I'm willing to listen to your argument to the contrary,  but it seems to me that the father ought to have no right whatsoever.  His work is done after seconds of pleasure;  the woman has nine hard months ahead of her.   After the birth, then the father's role begins - you're damn right that it takes two, and he should be obliged to support that child - or else keep his pants zipped.

  Besides, the fact pattern you describe is very atypical -  much more common is a woman being forced to get an abortion because the father wants no part of it.

@Jazzhead

I find it incredible that you could even post such a thing and seriously mean it.  So a man and a woman conceive a child, together--the union of sperm and egg---yet the father has no rights until after the baby is born?  That's lunacy, plain and simple.  Not to mention morally bankrupt.  I expect to hear this kind of thing from Gloria Steinem and her ilk, but from a thinking conservative?  No way.

[Silver Pines]

No, that's not what I believe.  I believe the better option is adoption.  But I'm not a woman.  It's not my choice to make.  I'll try my darndest to convince her to carry the child, and support her if she does.   But in the end it's her body, her decision, and neither I nor the government should have the legal power to force her to do so.

@Jazzhead

False premise.  You're talking about a separate strand of DNA, a separate beating heart, working brain, etc. Therefore it is not her body---it's another body.  A life besides her own. 

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

I find it incredible that you could even post such a thing and seriously mean it.  So a man and a woman conceive a child, together--the union of sperm and egg---yet the father has no rights until after the baby is born?  That's lunacy, plain and simple.  Not to mention morally bankrupt.  I expect to hear this kind of thing from Gloria Steinem and her ilk, but from a thinking conservative?  No way.

What legal rights are you proposing the father to have?   If he has a legal right to stop an abortion,  wouldn't he by the same token have the same right to compel it?   Why do you insult me for suggesting that the person who bears the burden of gestation and childbirth ought to be in control of the matter?   

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

False premise.  You're talking about a separate strand of DNA, a separate beating heart, working brain, etc. Therefore it is not her body---it's another body.  A life besides her own.

Understood. I don't disagree.  But the woman's body is the vessel - for nine long months - for the production of that life.  Why should the state have the power to compel her to carry a child she does not want?   

Yes, abortion is wrong and a terrible thing.  But the solution must be persuasion and support, not compulsion.     

[Gefn]

I knew a girl who lived on my dorm floor my sophomore year in college. She had an abortion- I don't know how far she was .

She killed herself about a year later. Left no note but I think she regretted it afterwards.

[TomSea]

Anyone can claim they are being compassionate and all abortions are evil BUT....

viability may start as late as 26 weeks, that's giving the green light to abort in the 6 month;

Might as well claim to be compassionate and claim to be for late term abortions because the world that awaits the fetus is a cold world and the fetus may end up a criminal, or killing someone or be killed themselves in the rough streets.  And of course, that kind of view may well be more set towards minorities.

Anyone can claim to be compassionate and against all abortion and then, BUT.... or IF.

Sort of a cop out, we are based on Judeo Christian laws but this other is Secular Humanism, Diversity and so on. A replacement religion really with its own values.

[Sanguine]

Understood. I don't disagree.  But the woman's body is the vessel - for nine long months - for the production of that life.  Why should the state have the power to compel her to carry a child she does not want?   

Yes, abortion is wrong and a terrible thing.  But the solution must be persuasion and support, not compulsion.   

It's not an issue of what she wants; it's an issue of what is.  And, it is another human individual - not a "blob of tissues".

[Jazzhead]

It's not an issue of what she wants; it's an issue of what is.  And, it is another human individual - not a "blob of tissues".

The legal/Constitutional issue is the woman's liberty,  her right to self-determination.   Persuade her to do the right thing.  Offer her support, financial and otherwise, to do the right thing.  But legally,  the state should be able to compel her endure a pregnancy she does not want,  at least until she has an effective period of time to make that choice.

As I've argued before,  I think that if she goes too long before making that choice, she could be deemed as a legal matter to have assumed a fiduciary duty of care toward the fetus.   That's why I think the Ohio 20 weeks law is likely Constitutional,  although the Court will no doubt fail to adopt the reasoning I employ.    The legal concept of fiduciary care is well-established - but a key component is that the duty must be assumed voluntarily.    Give the woman 20 weeks to make her decision, and after that assume as a legal matter that she has consented to do the fetus no harm and to carry it to term. 

While I have practical issues, as noted above, with the 20-week standard,  I don't think it denies the woman her liberty, and on that basis is probably Constitutional.   

[Idaho_Cowboy]

It's not an issue of what she wants; it's an issue of what is.  And, it is another human individual - not a "blob of tissues".

In regards to a blind man, Jesus was asked who hath sinned this man or his parents? The answer was neither. The government isn't God and can't give those who don't "deserve"; how is more killing going to help? How many people have the "right" to self determination taken away by cancer or drunk driver. Can we bring them back from the dead?
Does killing to give someone else that right and wipe the slate, but not the conscience, clean even out the balance?

The family has been reading the Christmas Carol out load, I've always been haunted by the words of the Ghost of Christmas Present:

"If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, none other of my race," returned the Ghost, "will find him here. What then? If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

Scrooge hung his head to hear his own words quoted by the Spirit, and was overcome with penitence and grief.

"Man," said the Ghost, "if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered What the surplus is, and Where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man's child. Oh God! to hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust!"
Sure, the Christmas goose might have gone farther if Tiny Tim and maybe even the two young Cratchits had been terminated; mere inconveniences to an hungry family. Would the family have been happier? Or would their love have been dimmed. Would it be better for Mrs. Cratchit not to look at the corner and see a empty chair and a crutch and weep; but to look with in herself and know the life that had been snuffed out?

My God are we even human anymore?


Heard this on the radio the other day, great song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP-Sxfntdb4

[Idaho_Cowboy]

No, that's not what I believe.  I believe the better option is adoption.  But I'm not a woman.  It's not my choice to make.  I'll try my darndest to convince her to carry the child, and support her if she does.   But in the end it's her body, her decision, and neither I nor the government should have the legal power to force her to do so.

Why doesn't the baby have a right to self determination?

[Smokin Joe]

I'm willing to listen to your argument to the contrary,  but it seems to me that the father ought to have no right whatsoever.  His work is done after seconds of pleasure;  the woman has nine hard months ahead of her.   After the birth, then the father's role begins - you're damn right that it takes two, and he should be obliged to support that child - or else keep his pants zipped.

  Besides, the fact pattern you describe is very atypical -  much more common is a woman being forced to get an abortion because the father wants no part of it.

You keep acting as if all this is imposed on the woman against her will. Whoa, right there. It takes two to tangle. She has the right to decide to not get pregnant in the first place. Geeeez, take the pill, carry condoms, get the shot, have the convenience of having responsible sex, or commit murder? Such a tough choice!

SOmeone else pays for that irresponsible behaviour, though, with their life.

I'm sorry, there just isn't any way to parse that and tell me it is right.

[Smokin Joe]

What legal rights are you proposing the father to have?   If he has a legal right to stop an abortion,  wouldn't he by the same token have the same right to compel it?   Why do you insult me for suggesting that the person who bears the burden of gestation and childbirth ought to be in control of the matter?

If she carries the baby without his approval, he gets to pay child support, at a minimum.
If she decides to kill the baby, he gets no say.
He gets no choice in the matter at all.
Yet it is as much his child as hers.

[Jazzhead]

Why doesn't the baby have a right to self determination?

The unborn child is utterly dependent on the mother to survive.   I've suggested that mother could be deemed to have assumed a fiduciary duty of care.   But such duty must be voluntarily assumed.  That means that she must have an effective choice,  which could be deemed satisfied following a reasonable passage of time.  Maybe that's 20 weeks, as the Ohio law effectively provides.   

This is the toughest issue in the world.  Anyone who thinks that it is black and white is not being serious.  You cannot ignore the woman's fundamental liberty, just as you cannot ignore the reality that a fetus represents a potential human life.     

[Idaho_Cowboy]

The unborn child is utterly dependent on the mother to survive.   I've suggested that mother could be deemed to have assumed a fiduciary duty of care.   But such duty must be voluntarily assumed.  That means that she must have an effective choice,  which could be deemed satisfied following a reasonable passage of time.  Maybe that's 20 weeks, as the Ohio law effectively provides.   

This is the toughest issue in the world.  Anyone who thinks that it is black and white is not being serious.  You cannot ignore the woman's fundamental liberty, just as you cannot ignore the reality that a fetus represents a potential human life.   

I don't know how to say this without being rude, but my Ma has put this bluntly so I'll do the same: Opening your legs is a choice.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Sorry folks, there's no reset button on life. We don't get to write of the mistakes and try again. It's not a dress rehearsal. Actions have consequences. You simply can't change that. I'm against murder to reset "mistakes" until the day we can bring the dead back to reset "mistakes".