4 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I think the current ban is much too restrictive, but this amendment opens the floodgates waay to far the other way. I think there can be a reasonable compromise had through the referendum end vs the amendment way.

My wife has had multiple miscarriages too so I understand the pain of that. She even had to have a procedure to have the dead child removed. It was tragic. I think that the Pro-yes people are very misleading in this area though. 

 

Both sides need to find middle ground. This amendment is far from it though. 

Without an Amendment the supermajority will push through their total ban. They should've been more reasonable. Now, it is up to the people to take away that power from the legislature who has not shown proper restraint. 

13 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I think the current ban is much too restrictive, but this amendment opens the floodgates waay to far the other way. I think there can be a reasonable compromise had through the referendum end vs the amendment way.

My wife has had multiple miscarriages too so I understand the pain of that. She even had to have a procedure to have the dead child removed. It was tragic. I think that the Pro-yes people are very misleading in this area though. 

 

Both sides need to find middle ground. This amendment is far from it though. 

This amendment is the compromise. Most importantly, it protects the pregnant in their most critical time of need. No government action that remotely restricts or endangers the health of a pregnant person is acceptable. It is effectively codifying Roe, with some additional explicit clarifications to protect the health of the pregnant individual.

12 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

This amendment is the compromise. Most importantly, it protects the pregnant in their most critical time of need. No government action that remotely restricts or endangers the health of a pregnant person is acceptable. It is effectively codifying Roe, with some additional explicit clarifications to protect the health of the pregnant individual.

we can agree to disagree on that part. The amendment has too many loopholes in it that it will not really provide any restrictions and allow abortion without any restrictions until birth, as well as bring back the partial birth procedures that were banned years ago. The amendment is a wolf in sheep's clothing. There are much more reasonable positions that could promote life yet still allow reasonable protections for the life of the mother in the event of an issue. 

42 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I think the current ban is much too restrictive, but this amendment opens the floodgates waay to far the other way. I think there can be a reasonable compromise had through the referendum end vs the amendment way.

My wife has had multiple miscarriages too so I understand the pain of that. She even had to have a procedure to have the dead child removed. It was tragic. I think that the Pro-yes people are very misleading in this area though. 

 

Both sides need to find middle ground. This amendment is far from it though. 

 

Abortion still irks me, and makes me immensely sad. Personally, I think it should always be a last resort. 

 

But I'm voting yes because this is a clear cut way to codify that the government has no say in that decision. 

28 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

we can agree to disagree on that part. The amendment has too many loopholes in it that it will not really provide any restrictions and allow abortion without any restrictions until birth, as well as bring back the partial birth procedures that were banned years ago. The amendment is a wolf in sheep's clothing. There are much more reasonable positions that could promote life yet still allow reasonable protections for the life of the mother in the event of an issue. 

No part of this post is factual. 

1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

 

Abortion still irks me, and makes me immensely sad. Personally, I think it should always be a last resort. 

 

But I'm voting yes because this is a clear cut way to codify that the government has no say in that decision. 

How do you mean? They can still be limited after “viability” right? 

If DeWine really wanted a "common sense solution all Ohioans could agree on", he wouldn't have signed the heartbeat bill in the fist place. This is the common sense solution, and watching pro-birth groups like Ohio Right to Life get forced into a corner and admit that 6 weeks is too extreme has been deeply satisfying. I voted yes, my Catholic parents voted yes, and I'm telling everyone I know to vote yes too.

I agree that the law as it is can be twisted to prevent women from getting important life saving treatment and that is a shame.  But please help me understand this.  Why is viability where we draw the line?  We are basically saying that the determiner of whether an unborn life should be protected (with rightful exceptions like a mother's life is on the line) is based on our current scientific advancements. If our scientific advancements increase so that we can keep an unborn alive at 19 weeks does that mean that all of a sudden 19 week unborn enters into this category of being worthy of being protected.  I just don't get how this makes sense from an ontological standpoint.  

1 minute ago, cle_guy90 said:

Why is viability where we draw the line?  We are basically saying that the determiner of whether an unborn life should be protected (with rightful exceptions like a mother's life is on the line) is based on our current scientific advancements. If our scientific advancements increase so that we can keep an unborn alive at 19 weeks does that mean that all of a sudden 19 week unborn enters into this category of being worthy of being protected.  I just don't get how this makes sense from an ontological standpoint.  

that was my next question for the group, thanks for asking. 

 

4 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I think the current ban is much too restrictive, but this amendment opens the floodgates waay to far the other way. I think there can be a reasonable compromise had through the referendum end vs the amendment way.

That's not very helpful in understanding your reasoning. 

 

Before Roe, we had a complete ban.  After Roe we had that vague "viability" standard and the no-restrictions/state could restrict/state could ban trimesters.  The current Republican super-majority and Governor authored and signed a six-week ban.  This amendment takes us back to Roe and seems to protect contraception. 

 

Where is the "reasonable compromise"? What makes the proposed amendment too restrictive and what "floodgates" are you worried about?

 

I'm with @YABO713, a woman's health should be between her and her doctor and the government should butt out.  The OB doctors I know say that every abortion procedure is a heartbreaking decision for everyone involved, even when necessary.  The loss is felt as strongly as a miscarriage. 

 

And (anecdotally, so maybe this means nothing) but they (both of them, and they're not in the same family) have said that they would never agree to perform an abortion on a healthy woman with a healthy fetus just because the woman didn't want a baby.  A doctor (who takes an oath to "do no harm") who freely gives abortions without necessity and just as birth control should lose their license.

11 minutes ago, Foraker said:

.  A doctor (who takes an oath to "do no harm") who freely gives abortions without necessity and just as birth control should lose their license.

No, they absolutely should not. Forced birth is a human rights violation. The doctor who protects a woman from a human rights violation should not lose their license. 
 

Should you be forced to donate a kidney to a person who needs it and would otherwise die? Quite frankly, that living person’s life is inherently more valuable than that of a fetus. So why would the bar be higher for the latter than the former? A person’s body and their uterus is theirs alone and the government shouldn’t be making decisions for then. 

 

When someone gets pregnant, it is either the best news or the the worse news they’ve ever gotten. Not much middle ground on that emotional reaction. Pregnancy is physically and emotionally extremely challenging and quite risky. Forcing someone to go through that just because they had sex and got pregnant - in other words, went along with what hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary behavior is driving all of us to do - is morally wrong. 

1 minute ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

No, they absolutely should not. Forced birth is a human rights violation. The doctor who protects a woman from a human rights violation should not lose their license. 
 

Should you be forced to donate a kidney to a person who needs it and would otherwise die? Quite frankly, that living person’s life is inherently more valuable than that of a fetus. So why would the bar be higher for the latter than the former? A person’s body and their uterus is theirs alone and the government shouldn’t be making decisions for then. 

 

When someone gets pregnant, it is either the best news or the the worse news they’ve ever gotten. Not much middle ground on that emotional reaction. Pregnancy is physically and emotionally extremely challenging and quite risky. Forcing someone to go through that just because they had sex and got pregnant - in other words, went along with what hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary behavior is driving all of us to do - is morally wrong. 

 

We agree that the government should not be making decisions for a woman about her health choices, and yes, pregnancy is physically and emotionally difficult and risky (particularly risky for African Americans), and there is a long list of reasons why a pregnancy can ruin a woman's life and health.  The decision should be between a woman and her doctor. 

 

But we disagree, and I think a large part of the coming "no" voters will agree with me, on whether abortion should be used as birth control. 

 

I continue to believe that a doctor who just gives "no questions asked" abortions isn't much better than a doctor who gives morphine to every patient who asks for it.  And none of this requires the government to be involved -- the medical profession is self-regulated not government-regulated.  (And while that is my opinion, I'm not advocating for new rules for doctors; I'm not seeking to impose my opinion on others.  I'm not a doctor so my "opinion" that a doctor should lose their license in this situation is worth as much as my opinion about my local mechanic.)

 

 

 

47 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Should you be forced to donate a kidney to a person who needs it and would otherwise die? Quite frankly, that living person’s life is inherently more valuable than that of a fetus. So why would the bar be higher for the latter than the former? A person’s body and their uterus is theirs alone and the government shouldn’t be making decisions for then. 

Not really an equivalent scenario.  To make it more accurate the scenario would be, should I be allowed to kill a person so I can keep both my kidneys?  In that situation we would answer a resounding no.  In fact, we would argue that the government should intervene and stop us.  

 

I just want to hear someone give me an definition of what makes something a life worthy of protecting?  Again,  I am not talking about whether a mother's life is on the line or health is greatly impacted.   I gave my rationale early on how I think that viability is a weird line to draw because it is based on current scientific progress.  To say it is based on whether or not a baby has been born is an odd argument to make because a 39 week unborn would not be worthy of being protected but a baby born at 23 weeks would be.  The 39 week old would be further developed in every sense (cognitively, physically, etc).  Basically the determiner of whether something is worthy of being protected is based solely on location.  

 

Women's health is one of the lowest reasons why someone ends up getting an abortion.  The top being financial.  I am totally sympathetic to health reasons, but should financial or not the right time reasons really be grounds to end a life.  Now if you say it is not a life worthy of being protected again what makes a life worthy of being protected?

 

https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6874-13-29

 

I feel like both sides like to make like it is so black and white when it is way more complicated than that. 

 

Edited October 17, 20231 yr by cle_guy90

19 minutes ago, cle_guy90 said:

I feel like both sides like to make like it is so black and white when it is way more complicated than that. 

 

No. One side considers it black and white. The other side recognizes that pregnancy is spectacularly complicated and that the government shouldn’t be forcing people to remain pregnant. 

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

No. One side considers it black and white. The other side recognizes that pregnancy is spectacularly complicated and that the government shouldn’t be forcing people to remain pregnant. 

 

That's just not accurate of how people feel on this subject. It is a spectrum and a lot more complicated than two opposite sides. 

This is a classic example of why Issue 1 (August) should have passed.   The current law (passed against apathy by those who knew it was unenforcable) is way too strict, the proposition is way too lenient.   It should have been left to legislation.

^yes legislators whose makeup is a direct reflection of gerrymandered maps, that’ll really reflect the true intent of Ohioans…… not

Instead of accepting that their policies are broadly unpopular, Republicans pretend that the state legislature is some sort of magical entity that writes unimpeachable bills for the good of the populace. To them, anything on the ballot for regular citizens to vote on is misleading and the poor rubes just don't understand the nuance of law writing.

 

The only reason they pretend this is true is because the extremists in the state legislature enact the draconian legislation they prefer, while the general population tends to reject those extreme bills. They hide behind some vague "principled stance" that this is the job of the legislature. Despite the Ohio Constitution providing this remedy for the voters to take advantage of when the legislation goes too far.

16 hours ago, YABO713 said:

 

Abortion still irks me, and makes me immensely sad. Personally, I think it should always be a last resort. 

 

But I'm voting yes because this is a clear cut way to codify that the government has no say in that decision. 

I understand where you are coming from, and the libertarian in me respects that decision, however, here is where I differ. 

while the law (to many degrees) does not recognize that an unborn child has rights, I feel it should. In the abortion case, just like child welfare cases, the unborn child does not have a voice and needs a surrogate to stand up and protect their right to existence as a human. 

 

Now, I agree that that heartbeat bill is a step too far (and I think it will continue to be enjoined in court). While it still makes me sad that people choose that route, I think there should be some allowance for it early on in the pregnancy, because that is what people want. SHould it be a viability standard? that is more reasonable. But what is viability today? 50 years ago is was around 22 weeks (first 2 trimesters), today, viability can be found sooner than that. So is 15 weeks reasonable? I think there can be a debate about that. 

 

What really saddens me about this is that as a society, it seems that what once was legal, but shameful is something that some people are celebrating. What that says about our morals is saddening.  Even if it is legal, it should be something that should be morally discouraged and resources should be devoted to promote a culture of life. 20 years ago, this was something that was being done. 20 years ago you could have a small faction of the Democratic party that was pro-life. Today, that is unacceptable. That is sad too.  

 

this is such a nuanced issue that is being waged in a black and white way. Both sides on this issue should be absolutely ashamed of their behavior on the matter. At the end of the day, I still am voting No because I think the amendment goes way too far, and it can be reconfigured in the future into something more nuanced and something that truly respects the needs of all Ohioans in a way that promotes life but still allows people to make a difficult choice if those cases arise.

15 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

No part of this post is factual. 

Have you read the language? Maybe we should question your comprehension skills? Or maybe we can just agree to disagree on a nuanced issue. 

11 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I understand where you are coming from, and the libertarian in me respects that decision, however, here is where I differ. 

while the law (to many degrees) does not recognize that an unborn child has rights, I feel it should. In the abortion case, just like child welfare cases, the unborn child does not have a voice and needs a surrogate to stand up and protect their right to existence as a human. 

 

Now, I agree that that heartbeat bill is a step too far (and I think it will continue to be enjoined in court). While it still makes me sad that people choose that route, I think there should be some allowance for it early on in the pregnancy, because that is what people want. SHould it be a viability standard? that is more reasonable. But what is viability today? 50 years ago is was around 22 weeks (first 2 trimesters), today, viability can be found sooner than that. So is 15 weeks reasonable? I think there can be a debate about that. 

 

What really saddens me about this is that as a society, it seems that what once was legal, but shameful is something that some people are celebrating. What that says about our morals is saddening.  Even if it is legal, it should be something that should be morally discouraged and resources should be devoted to promote a culture of life. 20 years ago, this was something that was being done. 20 years ago you could have a small faction of the Democratic party that was pro-life. Today, that is unacceptable. That is sad too.  

 

this is such a nuanced issue that is being waged in a black and white way. Both sides on this issue should be absolutely ashamed of their behavior on the matter. At the end of the day, I still am voting No because I think the amendment goes way too far, and it can be reconfigured in the future into something more nuanced and something that truly respects the needs of all Ohioans in a way that promotes life but still allows people to make a difficult choice if those cases arise.

You act like people are having cake and balloons at the abortion clinic. No one celebrates and abortion, and your assertion that some do is disgusting. 

2 hours ago, Clefan14 said:

^yes legislators whose makeup is a direct reflection of gerrymandered maps, that’ll really reflect the true intent of Ohioans…… not

 

We are all Lawrence County now.

1 hour ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

You act like people are having cake and balloons at the abortion clinic. No one celebrates and abortion, and your assertion that some do is disgusting. 

Tell that to the crowd that wants to "Shout their abortion" that is pretty sick and disgusting if you ask me. 

3 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Tell that to the crowd that wants to "Shout their abortion" that is pretty sick and disgusting if you ask me. 

Working to eliminate silence and shame around a medical procedure that literally saves lives is NOT equivalent to flippantly celebrating it.

Edited October 17, 20231 yr by hamish20

Just now, hamish20 said:

Working to eliminate silence and shame around a medical procedure that literally saves lives is NOT equivalent to flippantly celebrating it.

I do not see how you can say that killing babies saves lives but in your bizzarro world, go ahead and celebrate it.

 

Now, I certainly think there should be guardrails around the procedure and should be a very last resort for people who may have a physical medical condition or rape or incest of the like, but it should not be treated as if it is just like going in and getting a nose job. It is not, and as moral individuals, that distinction is important.

2 hours ago, Clefan14 said:

^yes legislators whose makeup is a direct reflection of gerrymandered maps, that’ll really reflect the true intent of Ohioans…… not

 

Some here always try to blame "gerrymandering" but when was the last time a Democrat won a state officials' election?    I think it was 2006.

9 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

, but it should not be treated as if it is just like going in and getting a nose job. 

Jesus Christ, no one is doing this. I realize this thread is a bunch of men (many of whom masquerade as “both sides” concern trolls parroting republican propaganda), but you should try listening to women on this issue. 

9 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Some here always try to blame "gerrymandering" but when was the last time a Democrat won a state officials' election?    I think it was 2006.

 

Yep - I said this the other day... 

 

If this Amendment passes, which I hope it does, it will throw some mud on the face of dems who have been whining for the last 15 years... There are likely more democrats/left leaning individuals in Ohio overall - The 3 Cs just don't show up to vote - Cleveland being especially abysmal. People are clearly energized about this vote in a way seldom seen in Ohio politics - if it passes - no more whining re: statewide seats lol. 

8 minutes ago, Gordon Bombay said:

Jesus Christ, no one is doing this. I realize this thread is a bunch of men (many of whom masquerade as “both sides” concern trolls parroting republican propaganda), but you should try listening to women on this issue. 

I do, which is why it is such a nuanced issue and should be treated that way. BOth sides should be ashamed of themselves in this process. 

8 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Some here always try to blame "gerrymandering" but when was the last time a Democrat won a state officials' election?    I think it was 2006.

 

in a state that is 45/53 D/R split in the last presidential election, we have a statehouse that is 33/67 D/R split in the House and 21/79 split in the Senate. The districts aren't competitive, so the only elections that matter are primaries, and only the most passionate/extreme folks vote in those elections. So we are left with a statehouse that is 75% extreme right wing, and there's no way to reign that in without eliminating gerrymandering. Again, this is what folks like you want, because they enact your extreme agenda.

 

It's not what the average Ohioan wants. That's why you're so scared of the ballot initiative. Maybe only 45% are Democratic voters, but a solid portion of the 53% Republicans don't support the extreme legislation passed by their party (yet still refuse to vote for the alternative party for a plethora of various reasons)

 

3 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

Yep - I said this the other day... 

 

If this Amendment passes, which I hope it does, it will throw some mud on the face of dems who have been whining for the last 15 years... There are likely more democrats/left leaning individuals in Ohio overall - The 3 Cs just don't show up to vote - Cleveland being especially abysmal. People are clearly energized about this vote in a way seldom seen in Ohio politics - if it passes - no more whining re: statewide seats lol. 

 

Abortion is not a 1:1 Democrat/Republican issue. It's a barometer on this single issue, which spans across parties (mostly moderate Republicans voting to support the amendment).

3 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

BOth sides 

 

Save your “both sides” schtick. If your ilk truly cared about preventing abortions and unplanned pregnancies over the years, there were (and still are) ample opportunities to help out those in need. Yet, you’d all rather pull publicity stunts and demonstrate outside of planned parenthood rather than help in any meaningful way. 

2 hours ago, Gordon Bombay said:

 

Save your “both sides” schtick. If your ilk truly cared about preventing abortions and unplanned pregnancies over the years, there were (and still are) ample opportunities to help out those in need. Yet, you’d all rather pull publicity stunts and demonstrate outside of planned parenthood rather than help in any meaningful way. 

pretty harsh considering you do not know me. Listen, there is a lot of nuance on the issue and those who draw red lines with their position no matter what side you may be on only contribute to the problem. SO yes, both sides contribute to this. Planned Parenthood is a big part of the problem too. They are disingenuous, otherwise, they would come to the table with reasonable proposals, but they do not want that either, just like the hard right does not want to actually solve the problem. 

There is an easy answer to this argument. Instead of men making decisions for women, let women decide what they feel is the proper course of action. Women are smart and are perfectly capable of making this choice. 

21 hours ago, cle_guy90 said:

I agree that the law as it is can be twisted to prevent women from getting important life saving treatment and that is a shame.  But please help me understand this.  Why is viability where we draw the line?  We are basically saying that the determiner of whether an unborn life should be protected (with rightful exceptions like a mother's life is on the line) is based on our current scientific advancements. If our scientific advancements increase so that we can keep an unborn alive at 19 weeks does that mean that all of a sudden 19 week unborn enters into this category of being worthy of being protected.  I just don't get how this makes sense from an ontological standpoint.  

 

Not sure what your argument here is. Are you saying that viability is arbitrary, so legal abortion around or after that time should be illegal? Or are you saying that the viability argument fuels the forced-birth side by giving them a reason to reject that line? Or something completely different?

19 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

We agree that the government should not be making decisions for a woman about her health choices, and yes, pregnancy is physically and emotionally difficult and risky (particularly risky for African Americans), and there is a long list of reasons why a pregnancy can ruin a woman's life and health.  The decision should be between a woman and her doctor. 

 

But we disagree, and I think a large part of the coming "no" voters will agree with me, on whether abortion should be used as birth control. 

 

I continue to believe that a doctor who just gives "no questions asked" abortions isn't much better than a doctor who gives morphine to every patient who asks for it.  And none of this requires the government to be involved -- the medical profession is self-regulated not government-regulated.  (And while that is my opinion, I'm not advocating for new rules for doctors; I'm not seeking to impose my opinion on others.  I'm not a doctor so my "opinion" that a doctor should lose their license in this situation is worth as much as my opinion about my local mechanic.)

 

"Abortion as birth control" is propaganda, though. It's a description that seeks to demonize women (and the doctors who assist them) who have any abortion that would not be done for medical emergencies. It's just another way to call these women baby killers. The people who use this type of phrasing seem to forget that everyone has a different definition of what makes a baby before birth, and when exactly life begins. To suggest that women are callously killing their babies as a form of birth control is to remove all the very real nuance and gray area that exists on this issue. Furthermore, elective abortions are extremely rare in the latter months of pregnancy, and most doctors won't even perform them, anyway, even if there weren't a lot of restrictions against it.  Women aren't going to wait 8-9 months to have an elective abortion. 

19 hours ago, cle_guy90 said:

Not really an equivalent scenario.  To make it more accurate the scenario would be, should I be allowed to kill a person so I can keep both my kidneys?  In that situation we would answer a resounding no.  In fact, we would argue that the government should intervene and stop us.  

 

I just want to hear someone give me an definition of what makes something a life worthy of protecting?  Again,  I am not talking about whether a mother's life is on the line or health is greatly impacted.   I gave my rationale early on how I think that viability is a weird line to draw because it is based on current scientific progress.  To say it is based on whether or not a baby has been born is an odd argument to make because a 39 week unborn would not be worthy of being protected but a baby born at 23 weeks would be.  The 39 week old would be further developed in every sense (cognitively, physically, etc).  Basically the determiner of whether something is worthy of being protected is based solely on location.  

 

Women's health is one of the lowest reasons why someone ends up getting an abortion.  The top being financial.  I am totally sympathetic to health reasons, but should financial or not the right time reasons really be grounds to end a life.  Now if you say it is not a life worthy of being protected again what makes a life worthy of being protected?

 

https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6874-13-29

 

I feel like both sides like to make like it is so black and white when it is way more complicated than that. 

 

 

You're making it black and white yourself by constantly referring to a fetus as a separate human life. If everyone agreed with that view, no one would be having this conversation. 

8 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Have you read the language? Maybe we should question your comprehension skills? Or maybe we can just agree to disagree on a nuanced issue. 

 

It's weird how everyone who disagrees with your position has an intelligence or comprehension issue.  Maybe they just don't see it the same way.

Edited October 17, 20231 yr by jonoh81

6 hours ago, YABO713 said:

 

Yep - I said this the other day... 

 

If this Amendment passes, which I hope it does, it will throw some mud on the face of dems who have been whining for the last 15 years... There are likely more democrats/left leaning individuals in Ohio overall - The 3 Cs just don't show up to vote - Cleveland being especially abysmal. People are clearly energized about this vote in a way seldom seen in Ohio politics - if it passes - no more whining re: statewide seats lol. 

 

I've said elsewhere that there were like 400,000 fewer blue voters in 2022 than 2018, and Vance did not get those votes. Obviously, 2018 and 2022 were for different seats, but there was no reason Dems couldn't have shown up. Had they done so as they did in 2018, Vance would've been blown out. The Dems in Ohio are about as effective as they are in Florida, and at least Florida has an excuse by being overrun with conservative retirees and MAGA. The only parts of Ohio growing are blue, and the state party can't seem to do anything with that. 

Edited October 17, 20231 yr by jonoh81

9 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

It's weird how everyone who disagrees with your position has an intelligence or comprehension issue.  Maybe they just don't see it the same way.

Funny how you say that. I never have a problem with those who disagree with my position.  I even disagree with others on this issue and still highly respect their positions and where they come from. It is when you attack my position as fallacy or wrongheaded where i take issue  with your comprehension or analysis. On this issue, it is highly charged and people have a wide range of opinions. You and I certainly disagree on the issue, but our opinions are personal to us and I know I will not change your opinion on the matter just like you wont change mine. As i mentioned to Brian earlier, we will just need to agree to disagree on this. 

6 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Some here always try to blame "gerrymandering" but when was the last time a Democrat won a state officials' election?    I think it was 2006.

Lol this is so on brand for you. As state above the winner take all approach of our elections, along with the senate & electoral college only give conservatives a huge handicap. It’s the exact opposite of a representative democracy. If we (like other more accountable, functioning, less extreme) democracies let the parties get representations (at the various levels) proportionally based on their % of votes I think that would solve a lot of the mess. It would probably anger some, but we all know why that is (they prefer their theocracy).

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Funny how you say that. I never have a problem with those who disagree with my position.  I even disagree with others on this issue and still highly respect their positions and where they come from. It is when you attack my position as fallacy or wrongheaded where i take issue  with your comprehension or analysis. On this issue, it is highly charged and people have a wide range of opinions. You and I certainly disagree on the issue, but our opinions are personal to us and I know I will not change your opinion on the matter just like you wont change mine. As i mentioned to Brian earlier, we will just need to agree to disagree on this. 

 

I don't mind that you and I disagree. I mind that we are being forced into this debate in the first place by people who either can't understand or can't accept that their personal morality or religious views are not universally shared or wanted. I mind that women are being told by those people that their decisions made through their own personal morality- and with the advice and care of medical professionals- are tantamount to murder. I mind the Right-wing extremism that permeates this and so many other issues. 

2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

You're making it black and white yourself by constantly referring to a fetus as a separate human life. If everyone agreed with that view, no one would be having this conversation. 

That is actually not true.  Many abortion proponents such as Mary Williams argue that the unborn is a human life just not one that is equal.  Here is an excerpt of her article (obviously it is an older article but this sentiment remains).

 

Here's the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That's a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She's the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

 

When we on the pro-choice side get cagey around the life question, it makes us illogically contradictory. I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of "scraping out a bunch of cells" and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of "the baby" and "this kid." I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can't we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it's pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn't the same? Fetuses aren't selective like that. They don't qualify as human life only if they're intended to be born.

 

https://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/

 

But for the sake of argument let's reframe my question.

 

What makes something a human life and therefore worthy of protecting?  

55 minutes ago, cle_guy90 said:

That is actually not true.  Many abortion proponents such as Mary Williams argue that the unborn is a human life just not one that is equal.  Here is an excerpt of her article (obviously it is an older article but this sentiment remains).

 

There's no such thing as an "abortion proponent". They are abortion *rights* proponents. There is a difference. You can fully disagree with abortion, but still support the ability of people to make the choice to have one. 

And your point there does not in any way change what I said. People disagree, and three of the primary points of contention in the abortion rights debate is whether a fetus is a human life, when exactly it becomes one and whether that designation should necessarily interfere with the ability of someone to have an abortion. 

 

55 minutes ago, cle_guy90 said:

Here's the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That's a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She's the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

 

When we on the pro-choice side get cagey around the life question, it makes us illogically contradictory. I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of "scraping out a bunch of cells" and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of "the baby" and "this kid." I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can't we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it's pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn't the same? Fetuses aren't selective like that. They don't qualify as human life only if they're intended to be born.

 

https://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/

 

 

And? This person is neither the arbiter nor the last word on the abortion rights debate. That she believes a fetus is a human life is completely irrelevant to all the people who do not. This is not a popularity contest. This is about respecting the ability of individuals to make their own choices based on what they believe is or isn't right. 

 

As for this person's point about contradictory phrasing and emotional reactions, humans do this all the time on a multitude of things. It's like when conservatives call themselves "pro-life" and then don't care when actual kids die from gun violence or hunger or lack of health care in the richest, most powerful nation in human history.

 

55 minutes ago, cle_guy90 said:

But for the sake of argument let's reframe my question.

 

What makes something a human life and therefore worthy of protecting?  

 

The forced-birth crowd ultimately doesn't care how anyone would answer that question, as they have no actual intention of respecting any position that is different from their own. The irony is that you don't even seem to realize that the subjective nature of the question- and ultimately the answers- undermines your own point about a fetus absolutely being a seperate human life. If you have to ask, are you really sure yourself? 

Please be aware that the language in the ballot is purposefully misleading; here is the actual text of the amendment as it will be written into the Ohio Constitution. 
 

FULL TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio that Article I of the Ohio Constitution is amended to add the following Section:

Article I, Section 22. The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety

A. Every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on:

contraception;

fertility treatment;

continuing one’s own pregnancy;

miscarriage care; and

abortion

B. The State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against either:

An individual’s voluntary exercise of this right or

A person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right

unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means to advance the individual’s health in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care.

However, abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability. But in no case may such an abortion be prohibited if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient’s treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.

C. As used in this Section:

“Fetal viability” means “the point in a pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient’s treating physician, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus with reasonable measures. This is determined on a case-by-case basis.”

“State” includes any governmental entity and any political subdivision.

D. This Section is self-executing.

2 hours ago, cle_guy90 said:

That is actually not true.  Many abortion proponents such as Mary Williams argue that the unborn is a human life just not one that is equal.  Here is an excerpt of her article (obviously it is an older article but this sentiment remains).

 

Here's the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That's a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She's the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

 

When we on the pro-choice side get cagey around the life question, it makes us illogically contradictory. I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of "scraping out a bunch of cells" and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of "the baby" and "this kid." I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can't we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it's pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn't the same? Fetuses aren't selective like that. They don't qualify as human life only if they're intended to be born.

 

https://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/

 

But for the sake of argument let's reframe my question.

 

What makes something a human life and therefore worthy of protecting?  

There was a debate on public radio tonight where the anti-amendment speaker argured that the amendment will take away a parent's right to control their child's sexuality (trans-fearmongering).  She essentially wants the fetus's rights to trump the mother's. 

 

That all seems to flip post-birth.  I can't imagine anyone in the anti-abortion camp saying that children have equal or greater rights than their parents.  Democrats have to fight for free lunch for kids in school and other aid to children and parents in every budget.  What happens to protecting and caring for the innocent children?

10 hours ago, Foraker said:

There was a debate on public radio tonight where the anti-amendment speaker argured that the amendment will take away a parent's right to control their child's sexuality (trans-fearmongering).  She essentially wants the fetus's rights to trump the mother's. 

 

That all seems to flip post-birth.  I can't imagine anyone in the anti-abortion camp saying that children have equal or greater rights than their parents.  Democrats have to fight for free lunch for kids in school and other aid to children and parents in every budget.  What happens to protecting and caring for the innocent children?

I do agree that there is a disconnect with many pro-life people.  If they wanted to cut down on abortion they would be more pro things like paid maternity leave and childcare which would cut down on a major reason why people get an abortion.  

Edited October 18, 20231 yr by cle_guy90

Most recent polling on Issue 1 (and Issue 2, and favorability ratings). Among people planning to vote, “Yes” leads 58-34. I cannot emphasize enough that it is still extremely important that we all get out and vote and remind our family and friends to do the same. But it is going to pass by a sizable margin.

 

https://www.bw.edu/assets/community-research-institute/october_ohio_issues_poll-final.pdf

11 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

The forced-birth crowd ultimately doesn't care how anyone would answer that question, as they have no actual intention of respecting any position that is different from their own. The irony is that you don't even seem to realize that the subjective nature of the question- and ultimately the answers- undermines your own point about a fetus absolutely being a seperate human life. If you have to ask, are you really sure yourself? 

I tried to rephrase it in a way that people who disagree with the fetus would still be willing to dialogue.  I hold that a fetus is a human life.  Now I know that people will reject that premise as you did.  So what I am trying to dialogue on is at what point then is a fetus a human life?  And can we at least agree that an abortion past a certain point should not happen.  We would never think of killing a baby born alive at 22 weeks because it is a human life and we are convinced of that but if the baby wasn't born yet then it isn't?  That just doesn't seem right.  And people like to argue that viability is a good line to draw.  Why does our current scientific advancements dictate whether something is a life or not.   Appreciate the dialogue.

11 minutes ago, cle_guy90 said:

I do agree that there is a disconnect with many pro-life people.  If they wanted to cut down on abortion they would be more pro things like paid maternity leave and childcare which would cut down on a major reason why people get an abortion.  

 

Because if we really boil it down, it's not really about protecting "babies" for many of them. It's about having control over the choices of others. We see the same thing when people bring up "protecting the children" as the excuse for all sorts of Right-wing stuff. Look at the opposition to drag story hour, trans people in bathrooms or sports, or the recent book bans. Children, or the vague and subjective interpretation of them, are simply the cudgel to get people to behave as conservatives want. 

9 minutes ago, cle_guy90 said:

I tried to rephrase it in a way that people who disagree with the fetus would still be willing to dialogue.  I hold that a fetus is a human life.  Now I know that people will reject that premise as you did.  So what I am trying to dialogue on is at what point then is a fetus a human life?  And can we at least agree that an abortion past a certain point should not happen.  We would never think of killing a baby born alive at 22 weeks because it is a human life and we are convinced of that but if the baby wasn't born yet then it isn't?  That just doesn't seem right.  And people like to argue that viability is a good line to draw.  Why does our current scientific advancements dictate whether something is a life or not.   Appreciate the dialogue.

 

The point is that you're never going to get any consistent answers to the question. Viability itself is a gray area, and as you say, science may move the bar some over time. But many still argue that viability is not really the limit, anyway, since abortions would still be allowed and supported in cases of medical emergencies, incest, rape, etc. Additionally, some belief systems would say it's not a separate human being until the moment of birth. Even so, the vast, vast majority of abortions occur before "viability", so we're essentially just talking about a tiny percentage of all total abortions. If you're against abortion and believe a fetus is a human life, you would clearly not support the viability limit, anyway, since almost all abortion occur before that. 

Edited October 18, 20231 yr by jonoh81