[Winstonm]

 Vampyr, on 2016-December-13, 10:04, said:

You don't seem to understand. The "disappointing" bit is the rusty coat hangars.

If that is the case, the disappointment would be that free or low-cost abortion clinics are not available in most cases - yet I doubt that is the point of the original post.

[Al_U_Card]

 Vampyr, on 2016-December-13, 10:04, said:

You don't seem to understand. The "disappointing" bit is the rusty coat hangars.

Not to diminish the unwanted pregnancy/child effect. Let the woman decide and if she wants the child it will show in the overall child-rearing no matter the particulars. An unwanted/unloved child is a lifetime sentence of cruel and unusual punishment.

[PassedOut]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-09, 00:40, said:

I am happy to say that Ohio has sent Kasich a second option with a 20 week limit. This one seems more reasonable as a rape victim can usually make a reasonable decision in 20 weeks, and I suspect Kasich will select the second bill and veto the heartbeat bill.

Kasich took note: Ohio governor vetoes ‘heartbeat bill’ but signs another abortion restriction into law

Quote

In a statement, Kasich said he vetoed what has been called the “heartbeat bill” because it was “clearly contrary” to Supreme Court rulings. The state would have been forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying unsuccessfully to defend the law and would have provoked lawsuits that would end up rolling back other restrictions enacted by the state, he said.

In a separate statement, he said he agreed with major antiabortion groups that have preferred to challenge precedent with the 20-week ban, which he said “is the best, most legally sound and sustainable approach to protecting the sanctity of human life.”

Abortion rights groups condemned Kasich’s support for the 20-week ban, which has no exception for rape or incest and has an exception for the life of the mother that rights groups said was too narrow.

No help for rape victims in Ohio. Moving the focus from regulating businesses to regulating women...

[Vampyr]

 PassedOut, on 2016-December-13, 16:46, said:

No help for rape victims in Ohio. Moving the focus from regulating businesses to regulating women...

Well, 20 weeks is a lot better than six. Hopefully most rape victims will know by then that they are pregnant. Can't hurt to look on the bright side.

But according to this article, the Supreme Court has ruled that foetal viability is thought to be at 24 months, so this bill may not stand up to legal challenge anyway.

[Cyberyeti]

 Vampyr, on 2016-December-13, 21:01, said:

Well, 20 weeks is a lot better than six. Hopefully most rape victims will know by then that they are pregnant. Can't hurt to look on the bright side.

But according to this article, the Supreme Court has ruled that foetal viability is thought to be at 24 months, so this bill may not stand up to legal challenge anyway.

Well if it gets to 24 MONTHS I think it's viable

24 weeks was reasonable, but medicine has advanced so that maybe it should come down slightly.

My concern with 20 weeks is that it will cause more babies with abnormalities to be born as the scan that picks them up either may not have been done, or moves earlier so is not as effective. This will cause more women to have babies they would have aborted, and either the women's mental health will suffer, or more will be handed to the state or both.

[Vampyr]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-December-14, 04:25, said:

Well if it gets to 24 MONTHS I think it's viable

24 weeks was reasonable, but medicine has advanced so that maybe it should come down slightly.

My concern with 20 weeks is that it will cause more babies with abnormalities to be born as the scan that picks them up either may not have been done, or moves earlier so is not as effective. This will cause more women to have babies they would have aborted, and either the women's mental health will suffer, or more will be handed to the state or both.

One problem is that even with the ACA it may be too expensive or inconvenient for poorer women to attend regular doctor or midwife appointments as soon as they know they are pregnant. No matter the number and nature of reforms, America's health care will remain fragmented until they switch to a single-payer system.

[barmar]

 Winstonm, on 2016-December-13, 12:14, said:

If that is the case, the disappointment would be that free or low-cost abortion clinics are not available in most cases - yet I doubt that is the point of the original post.

Not sure what this has to do with the finding that making abortions illegal doesn't reduce them. If abortions were illegal, you wouldn't have any abortion clinics at all. When abortions are illegal, coat hangers are the free abortion clinics.

[Winstonm]

 barmar, on 2016-December-14, 10:38, said:

Not sure what this has to do with the finding that making abortions illegal doesn't reduce them. If abortions were illegal, you wouldn't have any abortion clinics at all. When abortions are illegal, coat hangers are the free abortion clinics.

Why be disappointed that abortion laws don't work unless you were hoping to stop abortions with laws? If you are trying to stop abortions, you are relying on a preconceived idea of what is right and wrong and have hopes of forcing that morality on those who disagree.

[mike777]

to confuse the moral and legal issue even more are advances in science.

What or who is the mother when you rent a womb and what are the moral and legal issues?

When does the fetus become viable, able to live outside the womb as science advances?

Machine wombs rather than human ones.....etc....


At least here in america and rich western countries I have my doubts cost is a large factor in preventing people from obtaining birth control of one form or another.

[mike777]

 Winstonm, on 2016-December-14, 10:55, said:

Why be disappointed that abortion laws don't work unless you were hoping to stop abortions with laws? If you are trying to stop abortions, you are relying on a preconceived idea of what is right and wrong and have hopes of forcing that morality on those who disagree.

Winston you are certainly correct that many if not most people have preconceived ideas of what is right and wrong and that communities form to force that conception on others who disagree in the community. Many if not most do not act as if all conceptions of right or wrong are morally equivalent. I would even go further and say some evolution occurs in peoples definition.

[Winstonm]

 mike777, on 2016-December-14, 11:08, said:

Winston you are certainly correct that many if not most people have preconceived ideas of what is right and wrong and that communities form to force that conception on others who disagree in the community. Many if not most do not act as if all conceptions of right or wrong are morally equivalent. I would even go further and say some evolution occurs in peoples definition.

I should probably have said that my view is that we should not try to enforce our personal moral codes on others. As I have said before, the issue really isn't a moral one but a legal one: at what point does a fetus have the rights of citizenship?

[mike777]

 Winstonm, on 2016-December-14, 11:40, said:

I should probably have said that my view is that we should not try to enforce our personal moral codes on others. As I have said before, the issue really isn't a moral one but a legal one: at what point does a fetus have the rights of citizenship?

The legal view to the question has evolved over time. I doubt that evolution has ended and expect it to continue to evolve


There is clearly a strong resistance to change/evolution of the law by both democrats and republicans.


Just imagine the laws when there are corner stores with machine wombs.


whoever thought you could rent time for a women to carry your baby who would then hand over the baby after you pay for renting her womb and it is legal!


Now there is talk of creating babies by combining eggs from two or more different women.

[barmar]

 Winstonm, on 2016-December-14, 11:40, said:

I should probably have said that my view is that we should not try to enforce our personal moral codes on others.

That will certainly solve the prison overcrowding issue. Everyone is in prison because they were convicted of violating a law, and those laws are just the enforcement of moral codes.

Or is it OK to enforce our moral code regarding murder and robbery? What makes those moral codes different from the moral code against abortion? Remember, pro-life people think that abortion is murder, so you can't use the "victimless crime" excuse -- the unborn fetus is the victim.

[Cyberyeti]

 barmar, on 2016-December-14, 12:56, said:

That will certainly solve the prison overcrowding issue. Everyone is in prison because they were convicted of violating a law, and those laws are just the enforcement of moral codes.

Or is it OK to enforce our moral code regarding murder and robbery? What makes those moral codes different from the moral code against abortion? Remember, pro-life people think that abortion is murder, so you can't use the "victimless crime" excuse -- the unborn fetus is the victim.

There is a part of the moral code which is largely uncontroversial. Maybe the prohibition on murder arrived via the 10 commandments, but it's supported by almost everybody.

Abortion is a divisive issue where there is little consensus, hence why it's different to murder as regards legislation.

[mikeh]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-December-14, 13:28, said:

There is a part of the moral code which is largely uncontroversial. Maybe the prohibition on murder arrived via the 10 commandments, but it's supported by almost everybody.

Abortion is a divisive issue where there is little consensus, hence why it's different to murder as regards legislation.

It is a commonly repeated myth that the 10 commandments are the source of morality. Morality exists independent of religious belief, and existed long before the 10 commandments legend. We have written laws dating back to Hammurabi and it seems logical to assume that societies developed rules of conduct long before the invention of writing. And most non-Xian societies have always had, as far as history is known, some constraints on murder.

[nige1]

 Winstonm, on 2016-December-14, 10:55, said:

Why be disappointed that abortion laws don't work unless you were hoping to stop abortions with laws? If you are trying to stop abortions, you are relying on a preconceived idea of what is right and wrong and have hopes of forcing that morality on those who disagree.

IMO abortion is bad. I would prefer fewer unwanted pregnancies. I would prefer early to late abortions. I would prefer safe legal abortions to dangerous illegal abortions. I would welcome educational/social/medical/legal policies that achieve such aims. I hope that this is the majority view.

[Winstonm]

 nige1, on 2016-December-14, 15:54, said:

IMO abortion is bad. I would prefer fewer unwanted pregnancies. I would prefer early to late abortions. I would prefer safe legal abortions to dangerous illegal abortions. I would welcome educational/social/medical/legal policies that achieve such aims. I hope that this is the majority view.

Thx for clarifying.

[Winstonm]

 barmar, on 2016-December-14, 12:56, said:

That will certainly solve the prison overcrowding issue. Everyone is in prison because they were convicted of violating a law, and those laws are just the enforcement of moral codes.

Or is it OK to enforce our moral code regarding murder and robbery? What makes those moral codes different from the moral code against abortion? Remember, pro-life people think that abortion is murder, so you can't use the "victimless crime" excuse -- the unborn fetus is the victim.

Even assuming your position on morals (unlikely, as marijuana laws are showing now or older laws against jaywalking that had no moral code violation I know of), the question still is a legal one: at what point does life begin? It is only at that point that the fetus, baby, child, etc. has rights that can be violated, moral or legal.

[mike777]

 Winstonm, on 2016-December-14, 16:59, said:

Even assuming your position on morals (unlikely, as marijuana laws are showing now or older laws against jaywalking that had no moral code violation I know of), the question still is a legal one: at what point does life begin? It is only at that point that the fetus, baby, child, etc. has rights that can be violated, moral or legal.

I agree that many, many would agree with your viewpoint. Of course as you point out the legal question of when life begins evolves/changes over time.

In the not too distant future I would not be surprised to see the question apply to robots. Are robots alive? if we are n ot sure then do they(robots) have any rights moral or legal that can be violated or are they merely property? Is there some moral demand to treat robots in an ethical manner? Could robots show emotions, have intellegience, yet not be alive? Could robots at some point have some moral or legal rights that say a virus or bacteria that is alive does not?

----


sidenote....If you jaywalk in front of my fast moving car it may present a danger which may indeed be a moral code violation. You could at least debate if you break a law, any law that at some level is a moral code violation

[Vampyr]

 Winstonm, on 2016-December-14, 16:50, said:

Thx for clarifying.

Why should someone be forced to "clarify" just because you continue to deliberately misunderstand his post?