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

[Jazzhead]

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".

I understand your position.  It is a morally absolute position, and that's fine.  But the discussion is about rights and obligations under the law.  In our imperfect world,  women, like all of us, have the liberty to make choices, for good and for ill.  There is no easy answer. 

[libertybele]

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?

That seems to be the part of the situation that is rarely discussed. The fetus is of course inside the womb of the mother; however the fetus also belongs to the father and his rights should be considered. The argument of course is it's the mother's body, but IMHO the father and mother made the child; it was a joint effort and I think the determination should always be on the side of life.

[txradioguy]

That seems to be the part of the situation that is rarely discussed. The fetus is of course inside the womb of the mother; however the fetus also belongs to the father and his rights should be considered. The argument of course is it's the mother's body, but IMHO the father and mother made the child; it was a joint effort and I think the determination should always be on the side of life.

THANK YOU!!!!!

[Sanguine]

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.

Yes, if you're looking for "fairness" it's not to be found here. 

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Yes, if you're looking for "fairness" it's not to be found here.

Ma also used to say: Tough toenails kid, life ain't fair. Ma had a way with words. 

[geronl]

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.

What about "public accommodation"... 

[musiclady]

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.

 

The left has always controlled and changed the vocabulary (deliberately) to make killing a human being sound less heinous.

It is a 20 week fetus, and not a 5 month baby.  It is pro-choice and anti-abortion, not pro-abortion and pro-life.

It's a woman's right.  It's a woman's body.  It's a woman's "liberty."

Every one of those things is an outright lie to convince people that what is, is not, and what is not, is.

Unfortunately, they have clearly convinced a number of otherwise compassionate people that killing a baby who isn't "wanted" is a viable option.

And that clearly includes @Jazzhead who is using the vocabulary of the left to make arguments that are neither scientifically, nor logically valid.

I find that sad, because he is a good person who has been brainwashed by pro-abortion propaganda......

[Silver Pines]

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.   

@Jazzhead

Because carrying that child is a small thing compared to killing it.   

[musiclady]

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.   

For the same reason the state compels a mother not to kill her completely dependent 6 month old child if she no longer "wants" him or her.

Wanting another human being to be around has never been the requirement for stopping that human's murder any more than not wanting that human being around is a reason to kill him or her.

The idea that a child's being "unwanted" excuses ending its life is a leftist argument based on emotion and not fact.

Your compassion is misplaced.

@Jazzhead

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

Because carrying that child is a small thing compared to killing it.

And that's why I'm optimistic that persuasion and support can work.  Most folks want to do the right thing. 

[musiclady]

@Jazzhead

Because carrying that child is a small thing compared to killing it.

When all the facts are discussed, the consequences of killing ones own child are dire for the mother...... far more dire than being "inconvenienced" by a pregnancy.

The physical and emotional toll on women is extreme.

And yet the left calls it a "woman's right" to do irreparable harm to millions of women.

@CatherineofAragon

[Sanguine]

And that's why I'm optimistic that persuasion and support can work.  Most folks want to do the right thing.

No, most people want to do that that they see as most beneficial for themselves.  It is a function of society to set the bounds of acceptable behavior. 

[Jazzhead]

I find that sad, because he is a good person who has been brainwashed by pro-abortion propaganda......

I appreciate that you think I'm a good person (I think you are too),  but as for "brainwashed", well, all I can say is that I sincerely believe that the last 40 years of warfare between the pro-life and pro-choice "sides" hasn't saved many unborn babies.   That struggle has largely taken place on the battlefield of legal rights, and that's simply no way to get folks to come together in common cause.   And there should be common cause - no one defends abortion,  but when a legal right has existed for generations, a threat to take that right away causes folks to become angry and uncompromising and to lose sight of the larger issue - saving lives.   

I believe that far more babies would be saved if we could all -left and right - agree to move from warfare to reconciliation.   The left's preferred non-coercive solution to abortions -  contraception - can save lives, and the right's preferred non-coercive solution to abortions - moral persuasion and support for adoption - can save lives too.  Just think of the progress that could be made if half of us didn't fear and demonize the other half and its motives.     

[Jazzhead]

No, most people want to do that that they see as most beneficial for themselves.  It is a function of society to set the bounds of acceptable behavior.

Of course,  but the current situation of warfare over taking away long-standing legal rights isn't working to save lives. A different and more conciliatory approach not grounded in coercion is needed, IMO.       

[musiclady]

I appreciate that you think I'm a good person (I think you are too),  but as for "brainwashed", well, all I can say is that I sincerely believe that the last 40 years of warfare between the pro-life and pro-choice "sides" hasn't saved many unborn babies.   That struggle has largely taken place on the battlefield of legal rights, and that's simply no way to get folks to come together in common cause.   And there should be common cause - no one defends abortion,  but when a legal right has existed for generations, a threat to take that right away causes folks to become angry and uncompromising and to lose sight of the larger issue - saving lives.   

I believe that far more babies would be saved if we could all -left and right - agree to move from warfare to reconciliation.   The left's preferred non-coercive solution to abortions -  contraception - can save lives, and the right's preferred non-coercive solution to abortions - moral persuasion and support for adoption - can save lives too.  Just think of the progress that could be made if half of us didn't fear and demonize the other half and its motives.     

The problem with that argument is that you are dealing with irrational people who truly don't care about human life if it can't be seen.  You are dealing with people who are profiting by killing millions of babies and their supporters who have been brainwashed by their change of language to deceive people into thinking that they aren't doing anything wrong by killing babies.  You are dealing with powerful lobbyists and politicians who are lying with every breath in order to maintain power.

There is no rational excuse for killing unborn babies that is based on anything but emotion.  The scientific facts are on our side.  The Constitution  is on our side.  Ethical and logical considerations are on our side.

This is not a battle of equals, so there is no room for "compromise."  We have already been pushed out of the discussion by unethical "laws" that should have never been enacted in the first place.

Now we have to keep telling the truth.

Abortion is not health care.  Abortion is not compassionate.  Abortion is the powerful destroying the weak, and making a profit.

It's evil, and with evil there can be no compromise.

[Jazzhead]

It's not irrational to fear that womens' liberty is at stake - pro-lifers explicitly want to ban abortion, and many want to ban the procedure completely.  They think we're fascist oppressors, and we think they're unfeeling monsters.

Meanwhile, babies keep dying,  and many more could be saved if we could move from warfare to understanding and reconciliation - and common cause to save lives.

The genie's out of the bottle regarding a woman's legal right to choose whether to reproduce.  It's best to accept reality and work together to change the circumstances that force women to feel they need to abort.         

[Sanguine]

It's not irrational to fear that womens' liberty is at stake - pro-lifers explicitly want to ban abortion, and many want to end the procedure completely.  They think we're fascist oppressors, and we think they're unfeeling monsters.

Meanwhile, babies keep dying,  and many more could be saved if we could move from warfare to understanding and reconciliation - and common cause to save lives.

The genie's out of the bottle regarding a woman's legal right to choose whether to reproduce.  It's best to accept reality and work together to change the circumstances that force women to feel they need to abort.       

Yeah, that's it, women are too damned stupid to figure out to not get pregnant, so in order to "liberate" them, they have to be able to abort the person they couldn't figure out how to avoid conceiving. Makes perfect sense.

[musiclady]

It's not irrational to fear that womens' liberty is at stake - pro-lifers explicitly want to ban abortion, and many want to ban the procedure completely.  They think we're fascist oppressors, and we think they're unfeeling monsters.

Meanwhile, babies keep dying,  and many more could be saved if we could move from warfare to understanding and reconciliation - and common cause to save lives.

The genie's out of the bottle regarding a woman's legal right to choose whether to reproduce.  It's best to accept reality and work together to change the circumstances that force women to feel they need to abort.       

When I used the word "brainwashed" to describe your arguments, this is what I was referring to.

This has not one whit to do with a "woman's liberty."  That is entirely leftist propaganda.

The left has aimed for enslaving women in debauchery for decades, and Margaret Sanger led the charge by creating PP to remove any liberating restraints (yes, that's what I meant) from women's behavior.

Now, because of the left, women are trapped in evil, pretending that it's "liberation," when it is merely removing responsibility, ethics, morality and decency from their lives.

Meanwhile, babies are dying because the leftist lobbyists, politicians, and the vile Planned Parenthood are too powerful to fight against.  And we have a pro-infanticide President who is seeking to stop states from defunding PP, because he isn't one bit interesting in compromising.

The left WILL NOT COMPROMISE.

They profit from the death of those babies that you want to save.

[geronl]

   That struggle has largely taken place on the battlefield of legal rights, and that's simply no way to get folks to come together in common cause.   And there should be common cause - no one defends abortion,   
   

The left wants to outlaw even holding up pro-life signs or talking to women thinking of abortion, they want to outlaw women's  centers that don't do abortions. The left wants to end free speech on this issue. They want these millions of babies dead, dead, dead dead.

There are people who salivate at the idea of killing these babies, we had pro-abortionists chant "Hail Satan" at the Texas legislature.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

It's not irrational to fear that womens' liberty is at stake - pro-lifers explicitly want to ban abortion, and many want to ban the procedure completely.  They think we're fascist oppressors, and we think they're unfeeling monsters.

Meanwhile, babies keep dying,  and many more could be saved if we could move from warfare to understanding and reconciliation - and common cause to save lives.

The genie's out of the bottle regarding a woman's legal right to choose whether to reproduce.  It's best to accept reality and work together to change the circumstances that force women to feel they need to abort.       

The world does not exist such that women can have relations with whomever the hell they choose without consequences. That's reality. Deal with it, dude.

I think Nancy Reagan had some advice: Just say no.

At this time of year I'm always glad Mary wasn't a "liberated" woman. 

[Jazzhead]

The left wants to outlaw even holding up pro-life signs or talking to women thinking of abortion, they want to outlaw women's  centers that don't do abortions. The left wants to end free speech on this issue. They want these millions of babies dead, dead, dead dead.

There are people who salivate at the idea of killing these babies, we had pro-abortionists chant "Hail Satan" at the Texas legislature.

The left's extremism is a reaction to the right's extremism.  And vice versa.  It's a vicious cycle that will continue ad infinitum.   And meanwhile babies will continue to die.   

Warfare kills babies.  The blood's the hands of those who'd rather fight than reconcile.   

[Jazzhead]

The world does not exist such that women can have relations with whomever the hell they choose without consequences. That's reality. Deal with it, dude. 

No, the reality is that we're all fiddling while Rome burns.  No one who is focused on partisan warfare, and demonizing women, has as his/her first priority the saving of lives.   

[/quote]

[Idaho_Cowboy]

The left's extremism is a reaction to the right's extremism.  And vice versa.  It's a vicious cycle that will continue ad infinitum.   And meanwhile babies will continue to die.   

Warfare kills babies.  The blood's the hands of those who'd rather fight than reconcile.

You'll excuse me if I don't negotiate with folks like planned parenthood who chop babies up and sell them.

As far as helping women with other options etc. I'm all for it. Most involved in the right for life are on the front lines in the crisis centers helping one woman and one baby at a time. The legislative stuff is not where most of the resources are being used.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

No, the reality is that we're all fiddling while Rome burns.  No one who is focused on partisan warfare, and demonizing women, has as his/her first priority the saving of lives.

Wow, I suggest women either keep their legs shut or deal with the consequences (and as adressed in my last post this is where we need to step in and help in every way we can) and I'm "demonizing". Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!

I suppose "Thou shalt not kill is demonizing"?

Jesus helped and healed and then said demonizing things like: "Go and sin no more,"

[Jazzhead]

Wow, I suggest women either keep their legs shut or deal with the consequences . . .  and I'm "demonizing". Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!

Well, yeah, IMO that's a brutal and sexist thing to say.  Why do you think women get abortions?   Perhaps they are responsible and practice birth control, but it fails.   But mostly,  the man who couldn't keep his pants zipped tells the woman he wants no part of her or "her problem",  and abandons the woman to the harsh reality of being knocked up and alone.   Women don't get abortions as a form of birth control,  they get abortions because they've been left high and dry with no support from partner and/or family.