[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2016-December-11, 15:46, said:

Thank you. The sting in the tail of Barrmar's quioted article is that


I don't like the conclusion, but this research suggests that strict abortion-law simply creates and rewards criminals and increases the risks to the mother manqué.

Curious here. Why don't you like the conclusion?

[Vampyr]

Winstonm, on 2016-December-11, 18:22, said:

Curious here. Why don't you like the conclusion?

Read the rest of the sentence and you will see why.

[blackshoe]

MrAce, on 2016-December-09, 04:43, said:

…these babies…

baby: a very young child, especially one newly or recently born. -- Oxford American Dictionary

These are not babies you're talking about.

[blackshoe]

MrAce, on 2016-December-09, 07:33, said:

then I use my vote on her life rather than the baby's.

What makes you think you have a vote? What makes you think you should have a vote?

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2016-December-09, 09:09, said:

Did you happen to read the reason given for passing this bill? Because Trump had been elected. Just the first of many horrible things that are bound to occur over the next 4 years.

What idiot gave that reason for the passage of this bill? Why should we believe him?

[blackshoe]

mikeh, on 2016-December-09, 11:01, said:

At the end of the day, my view is that the state should be extremely cautious about imposing its moral ideas about when life begins and allow a lot of discretion to the mother, ensuring that she gets proper medical advice to assist her in making a decision. The heartbeat or the 20 weeks, etc, don't measure up to me.

Well said.

[nige1]

Winstonm, on 2016-December-11, 18:22, said:

Curious here. Why don't you like the conclusion?

I presented my view in an earlier post

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2016-December-11, 18:49, said:

What idiot gave that reason for the passage of this bill? Why should we believe him?

It came from CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2...-abortion-bill/

Quote

CNN:
State legislators had considered the bill in previous years but it never passed the Senate. So what made the legislature's Republican majority move now?
"One, a new President, new Supreme Court justice appointees change the dynamic, and that there was a consensus in our caucus to move forward," Ohio Senate President Keith Faber, a Republican from Celina, told reporters after the final vote.

[Winstonm]

Vampyr, on 2016-December-11, 18:33, said:

Read the rest of the sentence and you will see why.

I don't think so. His comment pertained to this quote:

Quote

Shah and Ahman, in a 2009 WHO study, said:
Laws against abortion do not reduce the incidence of abortion.

I'm curious why someone would object to this conclusion.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2016-December-11, 23:10, said:

I'm curious why someone would object to this conclusion.

Presumably because it implies that if you're against abortion, reversing Roe v. Wade isn't a solution. It won't reduce the number of abortions; affluent people will travel to countries that allow it, poor people will go back to back-alley abortions like they did before it became illegal.

[onoway]

A couple of thoughts.. wasn't Pence's proudest accomplishment as governor axing funding for Planned Parenthood? and he is adamantly against abortion. Barefoot and pregnant, or dressed up and cheering her man on, but ALWAYS subservient when push comes to shove.

It is highly ironic to listen to people - usually but not always men - pontificate about how government - usually but not always men - should decide what women can do with their bodies because of some sort of sanctity of life. Have you thought about war lately?

A woman can't decide she doesn't want to carry a child to term for whatever reason without all hell breaking loose with people oozing outrage at the right to life of an unborn organism, but hey, let's go off to Afghanistan or Iraq and blow up thousands of people INCLUDING children, some of them babies. Or what about the children trying to reach safety running from Syria, how many right to lifers are looking after any of THEM? Oh - they are just collateral damage, nothing to be done. Sanctity of life indeed, give me a break.

It would be also be interesting to know how many of these right to life people have adopted kids, among the ones I have met, NONE have. The people who adopt are delighted to have a child to adopt but none of the adoptive parents I have met have ever expressed any desire at all to force women to carry to term, including one couple who had been waiting quite a few years for a child.

The anti choice people I have met, however they dress it up with evangelical piousness, have as their ONLY interest imposing their point of view, of seeing that nobody offends their personal sensibilities by having an abortion. Whether or not the mother is able or wants to care for the child is of no interest, what happens to the child - or the mother - after the mother is forced to carry to term is of no interest. This is a flashback to slavery and is totally unacceptable in any sort of supposedly somewhat enlightened society.

Men have no business messing with a woman's decision as to what she does or does not do with her body unless she specifically invites them to be involved with her personal story. Not anyone's else's, only hers and only when invited.
Full stop.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2016-December-11, 23:51, said:

Presumably because it implies that if you're against abortion, reversing Roe v. Wade isn't a solution. It won't reduce the number of abortions; affluent people will travel to countries that allow it, poor people will go back to back-alley abortions like they did before it became illegal.

Yes, but when what you believe is shown to be inaccurate - it happens to us all, btw - isn't the better response to say, gee, thanks, I'm glad I found that out?

[MrAce]

blackshoe, on 2016-December-11, 18:47, said:

What makes you think you have a vote? What makes you think you should have a vote?

Why do you think you have a vote for disabled, gays, transsexuals, blacks, islamic people, jews, browns etc etc? We all do. Not that we are one of them, not that we judge them. But because we have a say when there are "laws" being made about them, to protect them, to support them. Or as in this last election, to be against them. Did you even know that, if the rights of pregnant women was defined and made laws about it ONLY by pregnant women, they would have MUCH less rights than they do now?

The system that we all accepted and having to live under gives me the right to vote in different ways. The same system that allowed idiots to vote for someone who chose to blow 2 civilian cities, babies, kids, elderly. pregnant, nature, everything on its path in Japan just because they wanted no more military people to die and to end the fight between soldiers early. The system that allowed another idiot to kill many people in another country and much more Americans than the 9/11 in order to revenge the 9/11. Some of the idiots still do not recognize they just started a war that will not last less than at least a century.

As long as I recognize that little life in a female body as a separate human than the carrier mother, and see laws are being created in order to protect one over the other, oh hell yes I have a say when it comes to tell and argue and defend the rights of these lives. But even then, even with negligence of mother, if that expected baby carries a health risk for the mother, I stated that her rights to live overrides the right of expected baby. My vote, opinion matters. Because there are religious idiots who would argue that the life given by God can not be taken regardless of what and she should take the risk. My vote disagrees with them when people are making laws about it. How do I vote for it? I try to choose people and vote for the people who shares my opinion. It is not like I want doctors to come and ask me for each single case.

EVERY ***** election, we vote for a president and other politicians. The position we allow them to occupy gives them many powers, including pressing button that can end all the lives on this planet. Who the ***** gave us any right to vote for people who has these powers? Each time we vote, we put our signature that it is OK for some humans that we elect to have this power and blow the planet when they see their nation is under threat and about to lose!

I am not a religious person. There is no religious motivation that shapes my opinions. So, am I right to recognize that little creature as a human? The entire thing is, as MikeH said, I said, it is not clear. What we all trying to establish is, "when should we, if ever, recognize this creature as a human being in the eye of law?"

I have the right to vote for people who recognizes this expected baby, creature, embryo, fetus or whatever name you like, as a human being.

One candidate this election said, if he is elected, he will make sure people of x nation or people of y religion will be send back from USA or similar things. There were people who voted for him and there were others who did not. And you are questioning my right to vote to protect a life that I consider as human being? You may disagree with me that I should not consider the fetus as a human being. I will have no problem with it. I may not agree with you but that is ok. But unless you come up with some solid argument why it should not be considered as a human being, we are going back down to the basic chicken/egg argument where there is no clear agreement.

[helene_t]

To those who believe that rape (or incest) is a valid reason for abortion but that abortion should generally be illegal, I have a question:

What is the operational definition of rape/incest for this purpose?

If it is just that an accusation has been filed, then I am sure that some evil rape revisionists would say that accusations are filed in order to get abortion. There will be a few cases where an accusation was filed, followed by abbortion and then followed by withdrawal of the accusation. It is already so that rape victims face all kind of suspicions that deter them from reporting to the police. We don't want to make that situation worse.

It the definition is a guilty verdict, then it is even worse (especially in a country that uses lay juriors) because some juriors will be influenced by the suspicion that the accusation is a scam to justify abortion. Besides: the rape case will have to be rushed through courts to produce a verdict while abortion is still possible. So the result will be later abortions (nobody want this, especially not the pregnant rape victim) and less reliable justice.

[nige1]

Barmar explained my worry. For WinstonM, I'll spell out my view again:
in principle, I feel that abortion is undesirable, for the reasons stated by Mr Ace.
In practice, If I were a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, I don't know what I'd do.
On this issue, I argued that more weight should be given to female than male opinion.
I don't object to the quoted research. I have no reason to doubt it's veracity.
The implications of the research should concern us:
If strict abortion law doesn't reduce abortion rates, that's an argument against it.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2016-December-12, 00:29, said:

Yes, but when what you believe is shown to be inaccurate - it happens to us all, btw - isn't the better response to say, gee, thanks, I'm glad I found that out?

It's like being unhappy when the weatherman says that it's going to rain. You're not unhappy about the process of weather forecasting, you're unhappy about the rain. There's some value in finding out, so you'll know to take an umbrella, but that doesn't make up for the displeasure of the rain itself.

[onoway]

helene_t, on 2016-December-12, 05:00, said:

To those who believe that rape (or incest) is a valid reason for abortion but that abortion should generally be illegal, I have a question:

What is the operational definition of rape/incest for this purpose?

If it is just that an accusation has been filed, then I am sure that some evil rape revisionists would say that accusations are filed in order to get abortion. There will be a few cases where an accusation was filed, followed by abbortion and then followed by withdrawal of the accusation. It is already so that rape victims face all kind of suspicions that deter them from reporting to the police. We don't want to make that situation worse.

It the definition is a guilty verdict, then it is even worse (especially in a country that uses lay juriors) because some juriors will be influenced by the suspicion that the accusation is a scam to justify abortion. Besides: the rape case will have to be rushed through courts to produce a verdict while abortion is still possible. So the result will be later abortions (nobody want this, especially not the pregnant rape victim) and less reliable justice.

Why Helene, didnt you know? If a woman REALLY wants not to be pregnant, rape or not, her body will reject the baby! So no need at all for abortions! We know this because a lawmaker (who is anti abortion, a man of course, and naturally has no medical training of ANY sort btw,) tells us so. Since when did truth ( or reality) stop having any connection with anything coming out of government or splattered all over the internet?

[mikeh]

onoway, on 2016-December-12, 00:07, said:

.

Men have no business messing with a woman's decision as to what she does or does not do with her body unless she specifically invites them to be involved with her personal story. Not anyone's else's, only hers and only when invited.
Full stop.

I upvoted your comment, but I do have reservations about this concluding part.

I think society has an interest in how we treat our bodies. For example, with a woman who is pregnant, society has a strong interest in her not consuming alcohol, since doing so may result in her child having fetal-alcohol syndrome. Such children often grow up to have very limited impulse control. They make up a large proportion of prison inmates. They live difficult lives. All because mum drank.

Same thing with many drugs.

It isn't just women, but it is 'just women' in terms of the harm that a woman can do to her child during pregnancy.

I don't advocate criminalizing such behaviour, since I doubt that doing so would have any beneficial effect. Drunk driving is way down, smoking is somewhat down, in NA over the past 40 years, and this has been by way of education, plus some limits being placed on advertising. I think most women these days know the dangers of alcohol and drugs when pregnant, but maybe more needs to be done in terms of education and addiction-assistance.

In addition, I suspect few would be comfortable with very late term abortion, when the child would be viable, albeit maybe only in a pediatric icu.

So I see some qualifications to your last sentence but otherwise thought your post to be excellent.

[alok c]

nige1, on 2016-December-12, 06:49, said:

Barmar explained my worry. For WinstonM, I'll spell out my view again:
in principle, I feel that abortion is undesirable, for the reasons stated by Mr Ace.
In practice, If I were a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, I don't know what I'd do.
On this issue, I argued that more weight should be given to female than male opinion.
I don't object to the quoted research. I have no reason to doubt it's veracity.
The implications of the research should concern us:
If strict abortion law doesn't affect abortion rates, that's an argument against it.

Really!!!

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2016-December-12, 09:03, said:

It's like being unhappy when the weatherman says that it's going to rain. You're not unhappy about the process of weather forecasting, you're unhappy about the rain. There's some value in finding out, so you'll know to take an umbrella, but that doesn't make up for the displeasure of the rain itself.

I appreciate your comments but isn't it wiser simply to adjust to reality than be displeased by it?