DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Ohio reintroduces 'heartbeat' abortion bill!

It's always very interesting on how they view life support and breathing tube compared to abortion.

BUT I look like I need one



The same could be said of a 2 week old, a 2 month old, and a six month old according to your logic we should just be able to snuff them out as well. Oh lets add folks in a coma I mean hell they can't answer you either therefor they must not be human



The baby would have been to if it was not snuffed out by the mother. Which BTW you would agree with if the baby was 2 days old before the mother ripped it apart.

You support murdering babies before they are born just for convience and you want to talk about hyperbowl

Some old white guy? LOL...are you embarrassed?

It's not about telling a woman what to do with her body. It's about protecting another body.

Life is life, I explained that earlier.

Either your old white ass is for protecting life, or you aren't.

If women can abort their responsibility, men should have the same right.


If a man decides he isn't ready to be a parent or can't afford to be a parent, he should be able to go scott free from supporting said child. Just sign the papers.

Women don't get special rights. If they can decide to not be a parent, so should a man. It's not a one way street.

Wait, I'm confused, are you saying they'd never cut those programs?

Did you read the part that if you can hear a heartbeat, it's alive and abortion at that point would be Murder..

Did you read the part that I'm against Murder of any kind?

I'm guessing you are so hung up on the "Old White Guy" thing that you missed the rest of my comment.

Outside of rape the argument about, "My body, My choice" is moot. You choose to have sex knowing that pregnancy is a possibility. Once you create life of your own free will then it's my view that the new life should be protected unless it endangers the mother beyond that of normal childbirth.

There are a lot of messed up situations in this world and it will never be perfect. None of them are a justification to murder an innocent baby. When the most innocent and pure of us are easily murdered because we don't value their precious life then our own lives are at risk because why should we be protected when we fail to protect the children.

Don't want children? Then don't have sex. If you gotta have sex because you can't control yourself better than an animal and you're too stupid or incompetent to use birth control and condoms then deal with the consequences. You choose to have sex and you choose how. That doesn't give you the right to murder the most innocent of lives.

I don't think so, but I did gloss your other points. Sorry about that.

A baby gains a heartbeat in around 20 days.

In 20 days most women wouldn't even have a clue they were pregnant. This law is basically trying to end abortion as an option by taking away the choice without criminalizing legal abortion.

Here Here!

So you think stupid people should have more babies. I think you are just trying to make more Republicans.

That's the entire goal no matter what else is stated. That's why the SCOTUS has had to overturn so many bills passed by the states on abortion.

The bottom line is that abortion is legal. Conservative run states do everything in their power to circumvent that law. They get away with it in many cases to a degree. But once they pass a certain point the SCOTUS overturns those laws because it crosses the line of allowing proper access to abortion.

They scream and yell a lot but the bottom line is until the SCOTUS overturns Roe vs Wade, all they can do is try to not follow the law instead of actually accepting that it is law.

Owning slaves was once backed by the law.

The law is sometimes an arse and needs to be changed.

I actually made no reference as to whether the law is right or wrong. Simply that it's the law. Something you usually always stand up for unless and until you don't agree with a law. Then it's different.

The problem with making abortion illegal is that it won't end abortions, it will just take them back into the back alleys. Shaming a woman for doing what she thinks is best for her, criminalizing that act, isn't going to solve the problem or make it go away.

It's like saying you don't like night so you are going to outlaw sundown. The world doesn't give a damn rather you like night or not, that sun is still going to go down.

I hate mass shootings, but outlawing guns and even confiscation of guns will not stop the problem because where there is a will there is a way. We can apply patches but somebody will always find a workaround.

No, we must obey the law but sometimes we must fight in the courts and through elections to change a bad law.

Many of us think current abortion law is an arse and we fight to change it for the sake of the innocent. When the day comes that there are enough of us, it will change.

How about the innocent children of color that are being exposed to hate speech and bigotry you are advocating for in another thread at this same moment? You fighting to protect those innocent? You know you are a helluva wordsmith at times, always painting yourself in a bright light of righteousness... Disgusting.

And that's why the old saying, "America, love it or leave it" is a terrible thing to say. Of course people should fight to make the changes they believe are unfair, unjust or just plain wrong. But that works the same for both sides.

And saying "when the day comes that enough of us" may very well be flawed logic. If that were true we would have stricter gun laws, national healthcare and a host of other things you disagree with. Because in both cases the majority of Americans want those things. Even our president wasn't elected on what "most voters wanted".

Sorry but your majority falls short of enough people to make those changes, despite what you think.

So "when the day comes that enough of us" only applies to the things you believe in and nobody else. Got it. That's one of the many things wrong with you. You think life only works in your direction. Sorry Weedhopper, that's not how things work.

Somebody will be super butt sore in 2020.

What's wrong with you is you DON'T GOT IT.
It is not what I believe in, it is what we believe in.
We all have the ability as citizens to change the status quo, you just need enough like minded people to vote.

We managed to save America from you and yours by voting in Trump. See how that works?

OMG! lol

You should be a comedian. Maybe Rush could use you as a Howard Stern style side kick like stuttering John.

You mean you put a the biggest liar America has ever seen in the White House as a temporary band aid until the Dems once again take over?

What do you care about innocent children of color?
You support abortion and 12 percent of our population (Blacks) have 40 percent of all abortions according to the CDC.

Man, that is like genocide!
But you and others on here support it!
Now that is disgusting.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6713a1.htm#T13_down

WRONG. I support the woman's right to choose for herself. I know that's a difficult concept for you but that does not give you the right to put your disgusting words in my mouth or to twist my position to fit your agenda.

When you show me you are as worried about the kids that are born and growing up unwanted, impoverished, sick, neglected, abused, etc.; no matter their age, color, religion, or nationality then I will believe you actually care about kids. Until then I view everything you say about unborn clumps of cells used to form a child in the womb as propaganda for the wing nut right.

Is an egg a chicken when you eat it? No it's an egg. Could it eventually be a chicken, yes... IF it's hatched!

I'm personally apposed to abortion (the act). I promise I will never have one, and luckily being male I never had to choose. But I don't assume it's my right to choose for others either.

You support another right to murder!

I think you heads just exploded.

I understand that, and I understand that.

A beating heart is a powerful thing.

When your heart is beating, you are living. When it stops, you are dead.

I know you agree with that unless you are stupid, and I don't think that to be the case. Not even close.

One of the challenges when it comes to creating or over turning laws is that laws have to be objective as possible. What does this mean? It means that as we work toward the answer, we have to consider that maybe some aspects of our personal beliefs and ideologies won't have a seat at the table.

I understand the sentiment of the beating heart. And my personal beliefs would align with that. But in the objective realm, this is where I really think it will based upon a stage of neurological development.

Currently we don't know where consciousness comes from. We only have a less than basic idea of what it is, and no real idea as to why it is. We do know however that the brain is the epicenter of what guides us through the world around us.

It's where our thoughts, feelings, emotions, memories, and ideas are formed and kept. It houses what makes us, well us!

When we become a "person" is probably more of a philosophical debate, but in the physical, objective world... I think neurological activity is the closest we're going to get. In fact, we already have a precedent for this concept. When someone is on life support and has zero brain activity, we believe the absence of activity means the person is no longer alive in any meaningful sense. If we believe this to be true, than logic demands we hold the opposite to be just as true... the presence of activity means that person is alive.

It's a slippery slope to be sure. And your point about being "brain dead" certainly brings a great point to light. If a person's heart still beats but their brain no longer functions, families often have the plug pulled. Yet many of those very same people have a totally different standard when it comes to abortion. I would think that in legal terms the same standard would apply for abortion as it does on ending the life of a person. That brain activity would be the deciding factor.

But that's where the war is won or lost Pit... the determination of if/when the unborn becomes and is recognized as "person". From the moment it's declared a "person" prior to being born, the "Right to Choose" goes out the window. Right now there are only 2 situations the killing of another person is done with no penalty: killing done in self defense, and a State sponsored execution upon conviction of a capital offense (the latter of which doesn't have a majority of acceptance on either).

As I've been typing I wonder if I just stumbled on another hurdle in regards to the exception for rape/incest.

Let's say legislation is passed with roughly the following language: Abortion before 18 weeks (random number reflecting when a fetus nominally can respond to external stimuli) is illegal, but there are exceptions for cases of rape/incest and when the life of the mother is threatened.

Said legislation is subsequently heard in front of SCOTUS.

Time frame: the science is sound, Constitutional

Life of Mother exception: not an ideal situation for anyone, but choosing one person over another in dire situations happens all the time, it's called triage, Consitutitional

Rape and Incest Exception: this is the tough part. Can they justify ending the life of a person who was not the perpetrator of the initial crime? and in a manner more serious than the perpetrator would get in the Justice system (i.e. the perpetrator isn't put to death for those offenses). Can an argument be made to justify this exception without knocking the legs out of the concept of a fetus being a person? Would it be reasonable to have the victim follow through on the course of pregnancy if they missed that 18wk deadline for any reason?

But how can there be two standards? If doctors and families can and do "pull the plug" on anyone who is deemed to be brain dead, then how can they claim the standard measure is "the heartbeat"?

To me, one would either have to be kept alive in a vegetative state as long as their heart is still beating, or there would have to be a standard set on when the brain functions within a fetus.

Did you forget that a family can decide to pull the plug on someone who is brain dead without any legal consequences?

Possibly this reason: The family of the person termed 'brain dead' is assured by a team of doctors (as 'assured as medical science can tell) that the person will NEVER recover.

Just putting that out there.

So brain dead meets the moral grounds for death of a living person but not a fetus. Got it.

I'd like to continue this discussion, but it's obvious you just want to argue.

A baby will be born, and grow, and lead a life. A brain dead person won't.

Sorry I even replied.

We were discussing what constitutes life and or the ending of it. That would be a legal definition. Not some discussion of what happens after that.

Either you have the right to end a life that has no ability to have brain function or you don't.

You wish to represent some scenario after which that decision is made.

Point being that the precedent has been set that a living person with no brain activity has a legal path to death.

Don't be so quick to get ahead of the curve with the criticism. The argument for using a beating heart as the standard honestly probably has more to do with the social sentiment about what a beating heart means. A heart has always been associated with "life".

But either I'm misinterpreting what you're saying or you're misinterpreting what I'm saying.

I'm not advocating for the legal standard to be based on a beating heart. I don't know that I'm advocating for anything really.

I'm simply suggesting that basing the cap on a medically accepted standard of neuro-activity that demonstrates a reaction to external stimuli similar or the same as a born person, would be a strong basis to define what and when someone becomes a "person".

Point being that the precedent has been set that a living person with no brain activity has a legal path to death.

^This leads to my point that the reverse should then hold true.. the presence of brainwave activity should then confer a legal path to life

I think we're pretty much saying the same thing. There should be one standard that applies across the board. See, on a personal level I'm dead set against abortion. But I try to remove my personal beliefs from the discussion.

I don't try to impose my personal or moral beliefs on society. But I do believe there should be some limit on abortion since it is certainly a legal procedure at this time. I can't change the law. Defining an actual time at which a fetus becomes a person seems like a logical path to follow in coming up with those limitations.

As such, I think looking at the legal precedent that has been established would be where one may look to establish that base of life. That's led me to where we are now in the discussion. That it would be brain activity. I do understand the emotional side of this. I understand why people feel the way they do. I have several grandchildren, and as such, children. They are my world and I can't comprehend for the life of me how people could conntemplate, much less go through with an abortion.

But from a strictly legal perspective I don't think there can be two separate determinations of what represents life. Everyone knows that if a person who has no brain activity they aren't considered alive. And to your point, yes, if there is brain activity it should be a legal path to life.

I think the brain activity is an interesting way of looking at it. Then how do you prove it and by how much? I mean not all fetuses grow at the same pace or the same exact way except in general terms because how it is cared for in the womb can greatly affect development.

I have no idea how you would determine that.