Progressives, part 3...

posted by jmog

Every death is tragic, but what I said is factually true. In modern medicine there is no statistical evidence that women are at any serious risk of death in pregnancies outside of ectopic, which is a totally different topic as both mother and baby will die if the embryo isn’t removed.

I don’t think you understood my point. I’m could care less about if it was statistically accurate. My point was these “stats” are actual people who are dying. You seem to have an acceptable level of casualties you are willing to accept when you agree or disagree with a particular law, whether it be pregnant women or dead school children. You seem to lack empathy or the ability to put yourself in their situations. 

posted by majorspark

Which Ohio senators?  Name them.

Googles free and will work for you too you know? 

https://www.businessinsider.com/ohio-lawmaker-says-he-didnt-research-ectopic-pregnancy-abortion-bill-2019-12?amp

https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/04/29/ohio-bill-would-ban-abortion-without-rape-exemption/

Sorry Schmidt and Becker are Reps. 

Point remains unchanged. We have law makers voting on legislation for us that they don’t fully understand what they’re voting on. 

posted by jmog

Given that biology says life begins at conception, that life has value and has rights. That’s not opinion  

Where do those rights begin? That question is now on the table. How far are you willing to go? 

Are you in support of banning plan B now? 

Now, states have to answer those questions. 

You also make a general statement on health of the mother. But, are you in favor of a carve out for a woman to get an abortion if she gets pregnant after 6 weeks and is told by her doctor she cannot carry to full term? 

I ask because that is my wife...and now she is faced with having to even entertain this is fucked up.

An average of 4500 men die each year from work related accidents, a little over 400 women.   On average 1900 plus soldiers die each year from active duty military.   There are inherent risks in every life choice we make.   Each should be minimized as much as possible, but impossible to make zero.

posted by kizer permanente

Sorry Schmidt and Becker are Reps. 

Point remains unchanged. We have law makers voting on legislation for us that they don’t fully understand what they’re voting on. 

It will be interesting to see if those bills pass because they are really outside the norm of public opinion here in Ohio and offer little to no carve outs for exceptions.

posted by Redstreakone

An average of 4500 men die each year from work related accidents, a little over 400 women.   On average 1900 plus soldiers die each year from active duty military.   There are inherent risks in every life choice we make.   Each should be minimized as much as possible, but impossible to make zero.

But we’re not trying to minimize it, we’re doing the opposite.  lol that’s the whole point  

Whos we?

I also ask if posters on here are in favor of the following, because these are all now issues on the table here and being discussed currently in other states. 

Full bans with no exceptions.

Criminal charging abortion providers in state and anyone that helps someone travel out of state.

Banning Plan B.

Banning IUDs 

Banning the use of the drug that is ordered through the mail.

posted by majorspark

It is a co equal branch of the federal government.  Their roll is clearly spelled out in article 3 section 2.  The judicial branch having attained supremacy over constitutional matters is the issue.  Is it a good thing for five people to have veto power over anything?  Especially one that may take a generation to change.

I believe the original intent was these three branches would have equal authority over constitutional matters and peacefully battle each other.  When the legislative branch overrides a veto of the executive branch it takes super majority.

Anyways this folly got started when the founders were still rolling in there beds.

Yeah, I’m aware.

My post was tongue in cheek because I think it’s absolutely asinine that the Supreme Court can make a ruling and then new justices can just overturn it. 

I agree with whomever made the point that not all pro life people are driven by their religious beliefs.  However, surveys show that a majority are.  The same probably holds true of the members of the Court - although we may never know that.  My point is that I see this a the start of going down the road of imposing the religious beliefs of some on everyone.  There are clearly differences of opinion on this issue.  Just because some biologists say life begins at some point does not make that a fact.  This is a question that does not have a definitive answer at present.  I may not like abortion on a personal level.  But I accept that there are many people in our society that feel differently and I also accept their right to hold that opinion - especially on a topic that has so many gray areas.  I also can understand a woman desiring to have final say over what happens to her own body.  To me, it would be like someone tellling me there was a law against vasectomies.  

posted by Redstreakone

Whos we?

You said were not trying to fix it, you speak for everyone?

posted by Redstreakone

You said were not trying to fix it, you speak for everyone?

I’m speaking for our legislators trying to pass current laws. wtf r u missing? 

State or federal legislators?   What state?   My point is Specifics matter, language matters.  Using generalized terms is just a way to stir up emotions.   I live in Ohio, I don't like the new abortion law that just went into affect.   I plan on sending emails, and not voting for my local representatives that support this law.

posted by Redstreakone

State or federal legislators?   What state?   My point is Specifics matter, language matters.  Using generalized terms is just a way to stir up emotions.   I live in Ohio, I don't like the new abortion law that just went into affect.   I plan on sending emails, and not voting for my local representatives that support this law.

Ohio. I referenced them just a few post earlier. Neither of those laws will mitigate deaths from pregnancies  

Guys, a non viable or ectopic pregnancy is not abortion. Yes some morons in the Ohio house tried to bring up something stupid, but it obviously had no legs(Kizer was correct). The point of 99% of abortion issues are for the people who want to use it as birth control. Yes, no one pregnant from incest or rape should have to bring a child into this world. 

posted by geeblock

I don’t think you understood my point. I’m could care less about if it was statistically accurate. My point was these “stats” are actual people who are dying. You seem to have an acceptable level of casualties you are willing to accept when you agree or disagree with a particular law, whether it be pregnant women or dead school children. You seem to lack empathy or the ability to put yourself in their situations. 

I just live in reality. With or without abortion that 700/year number doesn’t change as they are all delivery related complications (bleeding out, medical mistakes, etc).

So using that as a reason to keep abortion is not logical and is just an emotional argument.

You can attack me all you like, it doesn’t help your argument, and quite frankly it’s horseshit. I have never once said any number of deaths is an “acceptable number”.

If you can find me saying that then please quote me. If not I expect an apology.

You can’t come on here saying I have no empathy when 2 posts ago you used the R word. 

Lol these are ALMOST comparable, but not actually at all. 60k likes from idiots though. 

BREAKING: Oklahoma Democrat announces that he’s planning to introduce a bill that will “mandate that each male, when they reach puberty, get a mandatory vasectomy that's only reversible when they reach the point of financial and emotional stability.” RT IF YOU SUPPORT HIS BILL!

— Occupy Democrats (@OccupyDemocrats) June 26, 2022

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Where do those rights begin? That question is now on the table. How far are you willing to go? 

Are you in support of banning plan B now? 

Now, states have to answer those questions. 

You also make a general statement on health of the mother. But, are you in favor of a carve out for a woman to get an abortion if she gets pregnant after 6 weeks and is told by her doctor she cannot carry to full term? 

I ask because that is my wife...and now she is faced with having to even entertain this is fucked up.

Just like any other rights, the life has rights until their rights attack someone else’s.

So in the case of severe health/life/death of the mother absolutely abortion should be legal. 

My wife is even more prolife than I am, and tried to make me promise if that type of decision ever came serious with any of our children that I would choose to save our baby and not save her.

I lied to her and said “ok” but I would have never been able to truly choose the baby over her at that point. I know that’s “hypocritical” of a prolifer but that’s reality. 

The problem for most left wingers, like yourself, is that the left used to be “safe legal and rare” for cases like your wife, rape, etc.

Once the left started going to “9 months, after the birth for a few hours, etc” it’s still ok to abort the far right really fought back and this is where we are.

People like your wife may have to travel to another state if she wants an abortion.

When the left started being ok with killing already born infants the far right fought back.

You can blame your own side to be honest.

Plan B should be legal, I would never be ok with it in my own life but I also understand the need.

My wife, again far more prolife than I am, wouldn’t be against plan B being illegal.