Ohio passes Issue 1 ballot measure enshrining abortion protections

You still lose, even if I grant it ‘rights’ (I don’t). If you beseech me to save your life by hooking you up to my bloodstream, I have a choice to make. Yes, you have a right to life, but it doesn’t extend to forcing me into giving my body to you to use……we call that slavery. Now, I may decide to grant your request and commence a routing of your bloodstream with mine, thus keeping you alive. However, I have the right to cease that service at any time…my needs are not subservient to your own…

 

Well, dramatic phraseology aside, it says that country is completely in step with nearly every other country in the developed world. But aside from that, yes the Republicans have handed the Dems a winning strategy with their uncompromising abortion stance and the fix at SCOTUS to enshrine it. You think the pubs wouldn't absolutely jump on some other issue if they thought it would work similarly in their favor?

Doesn't mean to say it's the most important issue but it's been handed to them on a plate. Of course they're gonna use it.

 

Dupe

 

Apparently you dont know the definition of liberty. Its right there in the constitution, this is now the 4th time you been made aware of that.

Just because someone has a heart beat it does not give them the right to your castle, or body.

 

It doesn't take much to send you on an out of control tangent. You do make a good case for minimal government.

 

Please define what is (or is not) a human being that is deserving of rights. How does a clump of cells no bigger than a sesame seed meet that definition?

 

Apparently "Democracy" is very good according to Republicans UNLESS the majority vote for something they don't like, then it's bad.

https://news.yahoo.com/having-lost-abortion-vote-ohio-212408227.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Having Lost Abortion Vote, Ohio GOP Now Plans to Sabotage Results

 

The are not legal human beings.
How do you know they've done know harm? Now you pretend to not just know the minds of every USA woman but not the minds of every fetus? Even if they don't yet have a mind?

 

They are HUMAN BEINGS. A human being in China has no LEGAL standing here yet they are still a HUMAN BEING. Our founding documents do not say anything about your right to life depends on what the government says is a LEGAL human being. You are CREATED with your self evident INHERENT right to your life it is not grant by some legal standing with the government.

Show me the baby is creating a harm that is threatening the life of the mother and she certainly can invoke her right to self defense but then if the mother is going to die so is the baby so an abortion is perfectly justified morally and constitutionally. We DO know that a human life is harmed in an abortion don't we, harm lethally simply because another human being wants it dead.

And know I am not reading women's minds I am reading the results of the research which asked them what was in their minds when they choose to kill their babies. If you can refute the fact that the vast majority of abortions are elective and discretionary then do so. If you can maintain that the reasons you defend abortion are the majority of abortions then do so.

 

Because a human being from the moment of conception is not just a clump of cells and size is not what defines a human being....good grief did you ever study biology? Go read our founding document where it states where your self-evidence inherent right to life comes from, your CREATION.

 

And yet there were no laws in the United States prohibiting abortion for almost 50 years.

The first law prohibiting abortion in the US was in Connecticut in 1821. And even that law did not prohibit abortion until after "the quickening" (about 18-21 weeks). So obviously the very people who wrote about the right to life did not think that a pre viable fetus was covered.

 

Really? Where does the Constitution define what is liberty? I now it says we established the Constitution to secure our liberty and that of our PROPERITY I know it says you cannot be deprived of yours without due process. Under what circumstances can you take someone's right to their LIFE under our constitution and laws?

What does the founding document say about our rights, have you read that too? I think that is what establishes the liberties that established our government. Madison said “In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example . . . of charters of power granted by liberty.”

 

Reality can be dramatic is that a reason to hide from it and pretend it does not exist? I could care less about other countries and their continued declines.

And that is the MOST important thing isn't. If letting millions of babies be killed by the mothers gains you political power then all for it.

 

I don't think there was ever a death penalty for engaging in slavery. One must commit a capital crime against someone or be in the process of taking someone else's life for their right to life to be abridged. Me stealing your food from your house does not grant you the right to kill me. Me causing you an inconvenience and discomfort is not grounds for you to take my life. And no the bloodstreams are not routed together the purpose of the placenta is to keep them separate as there are TWO SEPARATE human beings involved. And yes if a mother refuses to provide substances to her born baby because it is inconvenient and and her "needs are not subservient" to the baby's and that baby dies she can be held responsible for that death and even charged with a crime.

 

Your 'right to life' cannot be used to supersede the rights of others. Look again at my example of the life-saving blood transfusion. You cannot demand to use my body, even if it meant saving your life.

Period.

 

What you call "declines" others see as comparisons. Women in this country don't like having less rights than their counterpoints abroad.

It's not central but they're going to use it as a lever if you hand it them on a plate. Who wouldn't?

 

Look up legal definitions and show them to us.
Those inherent rights are only afforded by a enforcing entity. Typically a law and a gov't.
It matters not what their reasons are. It's their body and their life. They choose with medical help.
Not you. You know nothing about being pregnant and having a baby.

 

I said nothing about taking anyone's life. Please pay attention. NO ONE has the right to demand the use of my body to sustain them, even if it would mean that they would not survive. No "crime" has to be committed for this simple understanding to prevail. And if I do choose to allow you to use my body for sustenance, I nevertheless have the right to withdraw that benefit at any time...

 

An abortion takes some ones life, do you have a right to kill someone who is causing you an inconvenience in your life? Where does the Constitution say that or our founding document establish that? If a mother refuses to provide substances to her born baby because it is inconvenient and and her "needs are not subservient" to the baby's and that baby dies she can be held responsible for that death and even charged with a crime.

 

What definition do you not know? This is not about the definition of a word. Those inherent rights are not CREATED and granted by the government PROTECTS them and is prevented from violating them or allowing others to do so. It is the babies life from creation that has the self evident right to that life not to be denied to them under the law or because someone else simply does not want them to continue living because of some inconvenience to them. Abortion is the killing of a human being simply because it is alive it is not some form of medical help, medical help does not purposely kill another human being.

 

Sure as we face our own moral declines here, if you want to compare them then compare how badly we all are doing. How about how much we are lowering the value of human life?

It seems to be the central issue to the voters that gave them their wins and of course the MSM and predictions here that it is THE issue they can win on.

 

But your right to not be inconvenienced can be used to deny someone else their right to life? Your right to your property cannot be superseded by my right to life so if I am trespassing and not threatening you you can kill me?

 

I think the votes have something to do with reaction to a creeping authoritarianism by a (mostly) religious minority as much as they have to do with the specific issue of abortion itself.

There's also a pragmatic element. I'm betting a number of evangelicals and catholics also voted to keep abortion legal. Look at the states where there's been push-back, it's almost a statistical inevitability.

 

False equivalency. In this example you didnt bring this random person into existence. The baby didnt ask to be brought into the world so it could be murdered. It is the responsiblity of decent humans to at the very least give every baby the opportunity at life.

 

You can tell when someone’s argument is on defence…they often start to use ridiculous analogies.

No one said anything about you attempting to steal my property. I deliberately used the very narrow example of you demanding to use my body for the purposes of maintaining your life.

You can’t. As tragic as the outcome might be, I have every right to refuse you that ‘service’. No court would force me to undergo what is essentially a condition of slavery…