ptown_trojans_1

Can we get a biology lesson from jmog? 

My view is there should be the option of it in most cases and doctors and the families should make the decisions. 

posted by jmog

For the 11th time, my belief is irrelevant to what the law should be. Unless one wants to be a dictator that is never relevant.

I have said over and over again, except in rare cases, when life has been determined (by biology, not ptown, jmog, any religion, not even the mother) then we can’t kill it.

I don’t know when that is yet as I am not certain it has been proven to begin. 

When setting policy and voting for policy, your view does matter, as does mine. I think you are using the biology question as an excuse and crutch to avoid answering the question. 

I understand you are deferring to an answer that we do not have now,which as a result, is not relevant to today's discussion. 

People around the country are debating and discussing the issue now.

For example, did you vote for or against Issue 1 here in Ohio? 

posted by jmog

I said when biology, science, determines when human life begins we, by our own beliefs in the DoI and Constitution, can’t kill that life unless it is currently or will cause serious bodily harm or death to someone else. Thats literaly the definition difference between murder and self defense.

You keep saying that but do you jmog, believe it? Is that your own view? Life begins at conception? What do you believe and when do you think an abortion is acceptable? 

posted by jmog

What you have said above has nothing to do with “rare” though. 

If abortion was illegal except in rape, incest, and serious health of the mother, would you be happy with that?

If you say no, then you are not being truthful with your “rare” comment.

Well, depends on your definition of rare. I think we should work at reducing them, but the option should be there. That's the view of most Americans.

posted by jmog

1. You obviously didn’t read my post at all, either that or you just made up what you thought I meant in your brain.  Did you gloss over the word IF when I said IF biology figures out when life officially begins? Or you just being your normal obtuse self and assuming what you thought I meant? The same is true for my stance if biology says life begins at birth. That would be vastly out of the majority of current beliefs in the US, to say all abortions are ok until birth yet you didn’t chime in on that (which I said earlier in a post). You aren’t that stupid ptown so I assume you are miss characterizing what I say on purpose. Thats the only choices, you didn’t read what I typed, you are ignorant, or you purposely miss characterized what I typed. Which is it?

2. Saying the health of mother is serious bodily harm is cruel and heartless? Get out of here with your sanctimonious bullshit.

3. Again, your confirmation bias on what you want to believe I said comes through. No way you are this ignorant, you are just twisting what is said to get people riled up.

You either need to actually read what is typed, be a smarter person, or be a better person. You choose which of those 3 fits this situation.

1. I asked you for several posts and you keep saying biologists say at conception, so if that is not your own view, then fine. But, you did not specify. You only have been quoting biology when I am asking for you as a citizen, your view. You are lecturing people on here. I'm trying to hone in on your view. 

2. I said look at the Texas law and get back to me. 

3. That's your reply? 

posted by like_that

Unfortunately, I do agree with most of what you said, but not because of Trump being the reason. The left would rather see Trump fail even if it means the country fails across the board (foreign policy, economy, etc.). 

The left trying to sabotage Trump aside, his foreign policy is still better. The “Trump unstable and crazy” argument goes out the window when he was pretty much spot on with his criticism, and not to mention the world was more peaceful with crazy Trump in the WH.  It’s a tough pill to swallow for his critics, but our allies should have increased their defense spending a long time ago.  They needed a Russian invasion of Ukraine to wake up. 

On top of that, Trump actually speaks from a position of strength and acts upon it if needed.  He doesn’t do this half in half out appeasement bullshit straight from the Obama foreign policy playbook. Obama spoke about Isis being the JV squad, meanwhile Trump turned ISIS into a jr high squad.  Old man (Biden) yelled at the clouds to Iran not to retaliate, meanwhile Trump had Soilemani killed and informed Iran that the US has 50+ other targets if they even think about retaliating. 

You can talk about the “best people” Trump has advising him, but wtf has Blinken done exactly that deserves a round of applause? Are we supposed to be impressed, because he can chop it up with the French and their media, because he speaks fluently? 

I get that view but Trump's Afghanistan policy set up the fall that Biden oversaw and screwed up. 

Trump also pulled out of the Iran deal. Say what you want about it, but Iran is much closer to a nuclear weapon today than they would have been if the agreement was still in place. 

posted by jmog

Just to be clear, if it is determined that the child is a life, then what you are saying is as asinine as “so just to be clear, your view is that the government should not allow murder at all?”

Because let’s be honest, if it’s a life and we kill it when it is not causing immediate fear of life for someone else (mother) killing the life is the definition of murder.

I'm for options and allowing the women and/ or significant other to make that choice in a safe and legal manner. Safe, legal, and rare have others have said. I'm in the majority view on this too. 

posted by jmog

So the father isn’t a person involved in a child? The child isn’t a person once deemed to be alive?

Man, factual biology is not that far from reality is it? 

You obviously don't know the personhood movement. Look it up. You would support it I'm sure. 

posted by jmog

1. If biology determines life begins at conception then that’s the only way your first statement could be true. Only way I would say it should be illegal completely is if biology concludes distinctively that life begins at conception.  If it concludes any other time then that is where abortion should stop. I thought I was quite clear on this?

2. I haven’t studied the Texas Law enough to know what I think of it one way or the other. Health of the mother is serious life or death consequences, which is rare to happen. Obviously things like ectopic pregnancies, pregnancies where the mother finds out she has cancer and has to start treatment, and so on. If carrying the child to term will seriously affect the mother’s chance at survival, then end the pregnancy.

3. My second point is reality in every single situation in life but you magically say it’s not with pregnancy?  Everything in life we do that has “risks” we accept the possibility of those risks and that is on us as a person to deal with.  For all of human history it has been known that sex has the possibility of pregnancy.  You accept that possibility with having sex. That’s a fact of biology. Why is it so far from modern society now? Because the far left says so?

1. Just making sure. Your view is way out line compared to a vast majority or Americans that are in favor of options and not a ban like you are suggested from conception. In your case then, you would favor a complete and total ban of abortion like the ones voters in states have rejected? You obviously ate against the Ohio issue that is now in the Ohio Constitution. 

2. Look into the Texas law and the stories that are coming from it. It makes your view look really cruel and detached from reality. The health of the mother is so broad it is hard to really pin down when the case can be applied. As such, doctors are being very cautious for fear of being sued or losing their license. 

3. I agree everyone takes risks into consideration, but your paragraph was sounding very unrealistic and not practical. People can take precautions and get pregnant, completely up ending their life. Your very ridge view is not practical in the real world and how people make decisions in this case. I read your statement like a bad sex education teacher. 

posted by jmog

Hardly, there is at least 2, most likely 3.

It takes 2 people to create the human, and a 3rd being that human if it is a life.

So you really do believe in the personhood movement. Mike Pence is that you? 

posted by jmog

1. When science confirms where life begins. That’s the line. Government isn’t choosing the line, religion isn’t choosing the line, biologists do.

2. The argument that it’s forcing birth, or forcing women to do what they don’t want to do is asinine, here’s why. Let’s remove the case of rape for a minute as that isn’t consensual. When a woman consents (and a man too) to sex, they KNOW that even with contraception they risk the chance of pregnancy. They knowingly accept that risk by having sex.  Knowing that they are chancing a life coming into the world they accept the responsibilities of it. The argument of “forced birth” is the most removed from reality and asinine logic I have ever heard. Again, assuming we are talking about consenting adults.

So just to be clear, your view is the government should not allow abortion at all then? I assume with exceptions for health of mother and rape. 

Next question. What determines health of the mother to you? Are you in favor of the Texas law then? 

Your second point is detached from reality in today's modern society.  

posted by majorspark
"Enshrine" telling choice of a word when it comes to abortion.  So state after state is making the "correct" choice.  What is everyone on about here?

People like the option and do not want government restricting them. 

posted by jmog

The government is design, but our founding documents (DoI, Constitution) to instill laws and order that protect things like life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. 

Who else would we setup to protect life? We have laws against murder, laws against even unintentional, but negligent killing (manslaughter), laws that are in place to even protect ourselves from killing ourselves (seat belt laws, etc). 

Who else would you prescribe to have laws protecting life once we establish scientifically when life begins?

Ok, fair enough. 

So, when should government set the line? When exactly should an abortion be legal and not legal? What week? 

How is that determined and who exactly determines it within government? 

Where is the line where the government is restricting the rights of the women and forcing them to do what they may not want to do? 

It seems like Republicans the last two years are way out is step on this issue as they cannot come up with a good answer to that question. Hence why the abortion measures in states are passing because voters like the option and do not want government totally making the decision for them. People like options, cause the real world is messy. 

posted by jmog

If there is a provable beginning of life it should be protected until said life will cause irreparable harm to another life.

The old adage that I can swing my own arms around until I come in contact with your face. That is until you “consent” to contact by starting the fight in the first place.  

And the Government is the best entity to make that decision?

posted by jmog

Most of what you said the last few posts is true.

But it most certainly is not a myth that the vast majority of abortions are basically “oops” birth control and not because of serious medical issues.

Statistically close to 96% of abortions are not medically necessary and therefore elective or “birth control”.

A multifaceted study by the NIH lists the most common reasons why..they are financial, need to focus on other kids, bad timing, etc.  none of the top 5 or 6 reasons have any medical reason at all.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3729671/

Let me clarify. The stereotypical view from the right that abortion is by far largely used as birth control for loose women is dead. I agree with your over 10 year old study that the picture is more complicated for reasons, not ones the right has been using for years. 

Again, the last 2 years has shown more people the complexities of the issue and that it is not a simple pro and con issue. 

posted by jmog

When life begins is a scientific issue not an individual subjective issue.

So where is the line where Government should be involved? How early in the process? 

posted by CenterBHSFan

I think it very well could have. Whereas before it was just considered as "settled law", meaning that everyone at the time assumed nobody would turn the matter to the states. And as long as that thought prevailed, it could be campaigned easily, which is exactly what happened. Now that it is a state issue, the first thing people did was shit their pants. Some just farted a lot. 

The question about how far into the pregnancy abortions are allowed to happen will be an interesting debate to follow because I, the person who is against abortion as birth control, have an exception. I will explain shortly but right now I have a stupid ass webinar to do that has nothing whatsoever to do with my job.

tbc

In this Supreme Court now, nothing is settled law. And yeah, people were rightly concerned depending on which state they lived in. As mentioned, red states voted the last 2 years to protect the right to choose the option, as they voted in pro-choice.....

If anything, the last two years has shown the myth abortion was used largely as birth control as false. 

posted by CenterBHSFan

I think "safe, legal and rare" is the way to go. Generally speaking that would cover rape, life of mother, forced incest and so on. I know that that broad scope was supported by Reagan to Hillary to Trump, which encompasses a wide variety of groups. 

Should everything come down from DC? I don't think so. Laws closer to home matter more on a variety of things, this being one of them. 

Time and time and time again Democrats have had every opportunity to codify Roe V Wade. In fact, remember when Obama said that he would handle that on day one of his presidency? Of course, once he got into office he then said that it was not his top priority. 

The unlikable fact is that Dems had zero intention on ever doing it because it has always been one of their main money makers for campaigning. It was a problem that could never be solved. That's just the truth of it. 

If anybody wants to work up a good lather from self righteous fury, they should look to the people who have always dangled the carrot but never let them eat it. But we all know THAT will never ever ever ever ever ever happen. 

Well Democrats ran into the same problem Republicans are at now, where is the line? Easy to do in the abstract with Roe on books. But, now that it is gone, all options are on the table from total ban to full allowed. 

I also doubt any law any Obama Congress would have passed would have withstood the Roe overturn by the court.

posted by jmog

You do realize that 99% of people view "pro-choice" and "legal in certain circumstances" as different things right?

Your "80%" is the "legal in certain circumstance" which most people take as rape, incest, life/death of mother. You assumed that was "well look, they are all pro-choice".

When pro-choice or pro-life is asked, even after the SC ruling, its still 52-55%, so again, you have been proven wrong. 

My first link is 2023 data (not 2018, the original article was 2018, the data was updated with 2023, its literally in the chart the poll was from May 1-24, 2023).

My second link goes up to 2022 data.

My third link goes up to 2023 data.

Again you looked at the headline, didn't read the article. You make proving you wrong way too easy. 

You can use polling all you want, but state after state is voting to enshrine abortion as an option by more than 52%.

Even here in Ohio. It wasn't even close. 

The old model and arguments about the issue are gone. Now, people are really talking about and realizing oh, those options are terrible and should be there. 

The other problem that still is unknown is where exactly is the line on the "health of the mother". The Texas example being the biggest as the woman had to go out of state after the Texas Supreme Court ruled she cannot have an abortion as it did not qualify under health of the mother even though her doctors said it did. The Texas AG has threatened to sue and remove any doctor that performs one unless it adheres to their definition of health of the mother. 

It was also funny how quickly Arizona Republicans even said yesterday, oh that is too far. Yet, 2 years ago, they were in favor of something similar. I also think it may impact the Senate and Presidental race as the issue will be on the ballot in November. Wouldn't be surprised if Biden wins AZ again now the Ds hold onto the Senate seat. 

I'd finally say the right has a policy issue on this that they still have not figured out. The backlash from the extreme pro life side to Trumps statement being one example and the whole personhood movement being the other.

posted by CenterBHSFan

By all means, if you are content or comfortable being stuck in that rut, more power to you. 

American history is changed by grassroots efforts within the two party system. It is not from some mythical third party or write in candidates. But, keep wasting your time. 

Want change? Work within the two party system. Look at Trump. He has completely changed the Republican party, from within.