Ohio House Bans Abortion… in a heartbeat!

posted at 9:15 am on July 2, 2011 by Kevin McCullough

Is Ohio becoming the most pro-life state in the union?

According to this report it seems darned certain to be trying. Reuters reports that the ban goes into place once a fetal heartbeat is detectable.

Fetal heartbeats have been detected as early as five weeks into a pregnancy, though most are consistently screened for at six weeks. In essence this ban eliminates any partial birth abortions, and of course that Satanic practice that President Obama voted in favor of FOUR TIMES in his home state called “Born Alive Abortions.” (In essence infanticide caused by neglect. You know babies dying in soiled utility closets and all…)

Compare the pro-life environment (all stemming from Ohio’s legislature actions) as opposed to the Planned Parenthood issues of Indiana and it might just be the new mid-west capital and champion for the lives of unborn children.

Critics point out that the Ohio legislation doesn’t include exceptions for rape, incest, or life of the mother.

And why should they?

Is it the child’s fault that he/she was created out of such horrific circumstances?

The bottom line is always about the HUMANNESS of the child, which always seem to somehow go unnoticed. We’re pretty good at understanding or stressing the “rights of the mother.”

And that always leaves me scratching my head wondering, who does protect the most innocent and vulnerable amongst us?

And as a conservative it pains me to admit that in this instance, it appears to be, the government… in the state of Ohio at least.

 

I’m Kevin McCullough, and that’s how I “Binge Think.”

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

So, where does your rights come from?

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Social consensus, basically. We agree that others should have inalienable rights because it’s the best way to ensure we keep the same rights. To believe that rights are divinely endowed contradicts the belief that rights can be deprived by due process. God never sat on a jury, after all.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Social consensus, basically. We agree that others should have inalienable rights because it’s the best way to ensure we keep the same rights. To believe that rights are divinely endowed contradicts the belief that rights can be deprived by due process. God never sat on a jury, after all.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 2:14 PM

You’ve never read the bible apparently.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Goldenavatar-

This isn’t in response to any of your questions, but I think it relates to the discussion in general. The paradox of the heap goes something like this:

I have a heap of sand. If I remove one grain, is it still a heap? If I remove another, is it still a heap? If yes, then I can keep removing grains until I have one left, and that single grain must also be a heap. But clearly a single grain of sand isn’t a heap.

You could apply similar reasoning to fetal development to conclude that life begins at conception (or even earlier), but it doesn’t make it any less illogical.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Bull. This is really where it comes down: where do you draw the line? There is no point in fetal development — none — where you can say that it’s not human before that, but is after it. You can’t find such a point.

Logically, then, there are exactly two choices: Protect the whole of fetal development, or kill them at any point. Since it’s impossible to argue that a baby at 38 weeks is not human or not alive, there is really only once choice: do we allow babies to be killed? That is a simple yes or no answer. And if the answer is yes, then you’re objectively for the killing of inconvenient human life.

All semantics about fetal development are an excuse for the fact that you want babies to be routinely killed before birth if it’s convenient.

There Goes The Neighborhood on July 2, 2011 at 2:27 PM

You’ve never read the bible apparently.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Or Thomas Aquinas.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Social consensus, basically. We agree that others should have inalienable rights because it’s the best way to ensure we keep the same rights. To believe that rights are divinely endowed contradicts the belief that rights can be deprived by due process. God never sat on a jury, after all.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Thus that’s how you can justify killing an unborn child. When you rely on man to give you your rights, man can easily take them away. When rights are divine, only The Creator has the say in who is afforded that right. Sorry, I prefer not to rely on a consensus of men to tell me what my rights are. History has proven over and over again that doesn’t work. Look at the French Revolution, the 3rd Reich, The Bolshevik Revolution, Mao, Che, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc, etc, etc.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 2:34 PM

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 2:34 PM

You do rely on the consensus of men for your rights, you just don’t acknowledge it. All those examples you cite show the dangers of totalitarian regimes. You could make an exception for the French revolution, which just showed the dangers of revolutions in general.

But what about our own history? We were relatively late abolishing slavery. God didn’t give women the right to vote. Or fight Jim Crow.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 3:06 PM

But what about our own history? We were relatively late abolishing slavery. God didn’t give women the right to vote. Or fight Jim Crow.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 3:06 PM

God gave us those rights. It was Man that prevented his fellow man from exercising those rights.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 3:10 PM

God gave us those rights. It was Man that prevented his fellow man from exercising those rights.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 3:10 PM

The Abolitionists and the Suffrages knew that. That is why they fought political laws denying people rights endowed by Natural law.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 3:14 PM

You’ve never read the bible apparently.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Actually, I have. I even think some of it is inspired, in that mundane, human wisdom sort of way. It’s not the basis of the republic democracy that has helped us progress toward true liberty, though. That had to be reasoned out and still does. There isn’t any sacred text that will guarantee liberty; we’re on our own and it’s best that we know it.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 3:15 PM

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 3:15 PM

And Thomas Aquinas?

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 3:24 PM

This is really where it comes down: where do you draw the line? There is no point in fetal development — none — where you can say that it’s not human before that, but is after it. You can’t find such a point.

That’s exactly the kind of poor reasoning the pardox of the heap illustrates.

All semantics about fetal development are an excuse for the fact that you want babies to be routinely killed before birth if it’s convenient.

There Goes The Neighborhood on July 2, 2011 at 2:27 PM

I don’t want any such thing. I’d like for women not to have to carry a rapist’s baby. God, what a horrible person I must be. I wouldn’t think being anti-rape could be such a controversial position.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 3:29 PM

And Thomas Aquinas?

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Selections. I don’t think name-checking Christian philosophers is going to change either of our minds. I don’t want to hog the thread any more than I already have. I’ll stick around for a bit to read any further thoughts you might have, though.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 3:41 PM

When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary.

Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life of the mother.-Alan Guttmacher, former Planned Parenthood president

Don’t fall for the lies pro-aborts use to get the sympathy vote.

pannw on July 2, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Funny how this happened right near election time. I’m a pro-lifer but I can see through the Republicans on this. They brought it up now to get votes and they know it will never survive a battle in the courts or they have some other plan to kill it after the elections are over.

The only real chance we had to turn the abortion issue around was when Republicans held all three branches of government while Bush was in office. They NEVER brought it up because they knew they could change the laws and they knew if they did then they couldn’t beat that same war drum the next time they needed votes.

Benaiah on July 2, 2011 at 4:19 PM

I’d like to hear why you think an embryo is a human being, with the same rights as a would-be mother. RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 12:41 PM

There was no controversy about this until doctors like Bernard Nathanson and his crowd began to argue that they should be allowed to get rich performing abortions and got the anti-abortion laws in NY repealed.

He repented of it and became a staunch pro-lifer, but he was there and laid it out for all to see. Not everyone is interested in seeing it, but it’s there.

Akzed on July 2, 2011 at 4:57 PM

William Amos on July 2, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Thanks for the info. Ohio looks to be on its way to success; for the climate, I’d rather move there than TX (sorry, TX) because I’m a sissy when it comes to extremely hot weather.

I’ve always liked Kasich and I’m thrilled to be able to watch him LEAD.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on July 2, 2011 at 5:08 PM

God bless Ohio.

How long until the court challenges start? You know the Left must be furious right now.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on July 2, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Social consensus, basically. We agree that others should have inalienable rights because it’s the best way to ensure we keep the same rights. To believe that rights are divinely endowed contradicts the belief that rights can be deprived by due process. God never sat on a jury, after all.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Wrong. The Founding Fathers put this in for a specific reason; it’s that our rights are not given to us by the state but are the natural right of all people, given to us by God. Governments are given powers derived from the consent of the governed, and that the people have the right to adjust those powers so long as they do not violate the basic rights of all. The Bill of Rights spells out not our limitations but limitations on government.

These rights are not “given” to insure we “keep” our rights; they are the natural state, the “inalienable rights” that Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence and Madison in the Constitution. It is violation of another individual’s rights where society judges that a citizen must be punished by the temporary removal (or permanent in a capital trial) from society.

itsspideyman on July 2, 2011 at 7:10 PM

This is really where it comes down: where do you draw the line? There is no point in fetal development — none — where you can say that it’s not human before that, but is after it. You can’t find such a point.

That’s exactly the kind of poor reasoning the pardox of the heap illustrates.

You’re the one likening a baby to a heap of wheat, so you might want to look to your own “poor reasoning.”

I don’t want any such thing. I’d like for women not to have to carry a rapist’s baby. God, what a horrible person I must be. I wouldn’t think being anti-rape could be such a controversial position.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Accomplish that without killing the baby, and I’d be right there with you. Accomplish it by killing the baby, and you’re in favor of killing a human life.

There Goes The Neighborhood on July 2, 2011 at 11:55 PM

I have a heap of sand. If I remove one grain, is it still a heap? If I remove another, is it still a heap? If yes, then I can keep removing grains until I have one left, and that single grain must also be a heap. But clearly a single grain of sand isn’t a heap.

You could apply similar reasoning to fetal development to conclude that life begins at conception (or even earlier), but it doesn’t make it any less illogical.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 2:06 PM

If you agree that prior to the removal of grains, that the composite of grains of sand is a “heap”, and that by the time a single grain remains that it is no longer a “heap”, then at some point in this process a transition from “heap” to “not heap” has taken place.

Where?

Rule #1 of fire arms: If you do not know what it is you are shooting at, you Do Not Shoot. Why does not knowing if it is human or not make it acceptable to abort? If you are wrong, then you have just killed somebody. That’s about a good an excuse as “Well he could have been a deer.”

Voyager on July 3, 2011 at 1:47 AM

Wow. A whole slew of people sure did get trolled by Kevin McCullough’s advertisement post today.

FlatFoot on July 3, 2011 at 2:11 AM

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 2:06 PM

I have a human being. If I remove one cell, is it still a human being? If yes, then I can keep removing cells until I have one left, and that single cell must be a human being.

You would then say “but a single cell cannot be a human being.” Well, science being what it is, that single cell is indeed a human being — it has the DNA of a unique human being — DNA which does not match his or her mother’s. DNA which can tell us the sex of that single cell.

Now, the reverse process is how an adult human being is constructed. That one cell turns into two cells, then three, then… and, at each stage, the result is still human. A human matures, grows old, and dies in a continuum of changes.

There are many points in the various abortion laws where the right to kill said human resides with the mother and the mother only. In California, a mother can be on her way to an abortion clinic to legally rid herself of her “wombworm”, be killed by a robber, and that robber, under California law, will be prosecuted for two murders — the murder of the mother and the murder of the “wombworm”.

Now, what is the closest thing in our history which is analogous to a situation in which the fate of one person is determined totally by the will of another person?

Hint: We fought a war over it.

unclesmrgol on July 3, 2011 at 2:13 AM

“Is it the child’s fault that he/she was created out of such horrific circumstances?” is decidedly a bad bad argument. You are presuming, perhaps, that being raped is the woman’s fault?

Please find a better argument.

{^_^}

herself on July 3, 2011 at 7:04 AM

That’s exactly the kind of poor reasoning the pardox of the heap illustrates.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 3:29 PM

So…..if I leave the heap of sand alone for 9 months, what does it become?

Your soul is dead.

Talon on July 3, 2011 at 11:15 AM

On the question of rights…

They are endowed by The Creator. Within this nation, the first to acknowledge that fact, our Constitution was written to show that the government did make that acknowledgement, and that they would not infringe on those rights. So the document recognizes and guarantees those rights, it does not issue them.

However, people with agendas and power have a nasty habit of doing what they can to infringe on those rights, and if we are ignorant, apathetic, or cowardly we will permit those infringements. Societal mores can also erode to the point that there is a common failure to energetically defend rights against such infringements. None of that changes the fact that the rights flowed from God. Only that imperfect, sinful man gets in the way.

herself on July 3, 2011 at 7:04 AM

No, it’s a completely valid argument. You are mistaken in your analysis, which leads to presuming that it is alright to murder the most innocent party of a crime. Nobody is claiming that a rape victim is guilty of “asking for it”. But the argument that forcing her to bear a child is “punishing her all over again” is specious.

Freelancer on July 3, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Critics point out that the Ohio legislation doesn’t include exceptions for rape, incest, or life of the mother.

Had abortion been available to terminate pregnancies with these circumstances since the dawn of human existence …

NONE OF US WOULD BE HERE.

Oh sure – there would be people here – just not us.

Think for a moment, at the number of human copulations that had to take place, between specific people throughout human history – at precise intervals of time – in order to produce YOU.

Thousands … of copulations … each of which had to take place within a finite time window in order to produce each of us alive today. It’s mind boggling.

Now – of those THOUSANDS of copulations and pregnancies – how many do you think took place under ideal circumstances?

Probably a lot – but an equal number have some sad tales of woe.

Each of us has INCEST in our genetic backgrounds. Each of us has RAPE in our genetic backgrounds. Each of us has some mother who died giving birth to one of our ancestors.

And without those “less than ideal” pregnancies – we would not exist.

HondaV65 on July 3, 2011 at 3:00 PM

HondaV65 on July 3, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Well said! My father-in-law was born to a 15-year-old Irish Catholic girl in 1929. And his father was Italian! Lord knows he would not be here, nor would my wonderful husband and all of his family, if abortion had been legal then. He was raised by his grandparents until his mother was old enough to marry and then her husband adopted him and raised him as his own.

There should be an exception in all abortion laws when the mother’s life is really at stake. But I don’t get why anyone who is a rape or incest victim suddenly decides they need an abortion SIX WEEKS or more after conception. Even a young girl knows something has happened to her body within three weeks, and certainly within four when she misses a period.

rockmom on July 3, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Hey, RightOfLeft, if the rights we recognize in our Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution social consensus, then would it be wrong if all 300+ million of the rest of us decided to torture you for fun on national TV? Social consensus über alles, right?

I predict you’ll make a convenient appeal to objective morality as superior to social consensus.

OhioCoastie on July 3, 2011 at 4:44 PM

[corrected]

Hey, RightOfLeft, if the rights we recognize in our Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution come from social consensus, then would it be wrong if all 300+ million of the rest of us decided to torture you for fun on national TV? Social consensus über alles, right?

I predict you’ll make a convenient appeal to objective morality as being superior to social consensus.

OhioCoastie on July 3, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Critics point out that the Ohio legislation doesn’t include exceptions for rape, incest, or life of the mother.

This is patently false. There is a provision for when the mother’s life is in danger.

Here is a quotation from the bill, right from the Ohio Legislation website:

“Provides that a person is not in violation of the above prohibition if that person performs a medical procedure designed to or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant woman or, in that personʹs reasonable medical judgment, to preserve the life of the pregnant woman.”

Reuters is reporting that the bill provides no out if the woman’s life is in danger. However, if you read the bill, they do.

Here is the actual bill, in its last form, the one passed by the Ohio House:

http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/analyses129/h0125-rh-129.pdf

Another example where Reuter’s political bend falsifies the facts.

itsspideyman on July 3, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Another example where Reuter’s political bend falsifies the facts.

itsspideyman on July 3, 2011 at 5:46 PM

And McCullough’s. And the other idiots here whose response was that a woman should be allowed to die. Just another example how idiotic some of you so called pro life whackjobs really are.

Blake on July 3, 2011 at 8:00 PM

America doesn’t want the govt to be in charge of pregnancy.

Simple as that.

If abortion is against a woman’s values, she should choose to continue the pregnancy. Simple as that.

And, plenty of things are done with my tax dollar that offend me. So, that is just a lame way to try and put the govt in charge of pregnancy.

Moesart on July 3, 2011 at 9:39 PM

the other idiots here whose response was that a woman should be allowed to die.
 
Blake on July 3, 2011 at 8:00 PM

 
Sorry, but who was that specifically?

rogerb on July 4, 2011 at 6:30 AM

God never sat on a jury, after all.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 2:14 PM

God never sat on a jury because he is the Supreme Judge. Duh

IowaWoman on July 4, 2011 at 8:13 AM

We don’t execute men solely for the crime of rape. Where is the justice in executing the innocent baby for his/her father’s crime?

Abortion is often used to hide the crime of incest. The man impregnates the girl, then forces her to allow the abortionist to kill her baby. No one is the wiser, and the abuse continues in secret.

In a study conducted by Dr. David Reardon, 192 women who had become pregnant after incest or rape were asked whether they would recommend abortion to other women in similar circumstances. Of those who had aborted their babies, about 80 percent said that they wished they had let their babies live. Among the women who had delivered their babies, the pro-life response was even greater.

Abortion kills babies, and can hurt or kill mothers. Google “Synthia Dennard” and “Lou Ann Herron” to read about two women who died during “safe, legal” abortions.

Every mother deserves better than abortion.

Every child deserves a chance.

KyMouse on July 4, 2011 at 8:20 AM

And, plenty of things are done with my tax dollar that offend me. So, that is just a lame way to try and put the govt in charge of pregnancy.

Moesart on July 3, 2011 at 9:39 PM

Abortion is an end to pregnancy, the Government seems very involved in that. The Government spends our tax dollars in many offensive ways but Murder of Innocent babies is more then offensive.

IowaWoman on July 4, 2011 at 8:21 AM

Abortion is an end to pregnancy, the Government seems very involved in that. The Government spends our tax dollars in many offensive ways but Murder of Innocent babies is more then offensive.

IowaWoman on July 4, 2011 at 8:21 AM

It is Evil

IowaWoman on July 4, 2011 at 8:24 AM

“Is it the child’s fault that he/she was created out of such horrific circumstances?” is decidedly a bad bad argument. You are presuming, perhaps, that being raped is the woman’s fault?

Please find a better argument.

{^_^}

herself on July 3, 2011 at 7:04 AM

Pretzel Logic. If she were raped it could NOT be her fault. It is you that is assuming that for the straw man for your Pretzel Logic .

IowaWoman on July 4, 2011 at 8:34 AM

itsspideyman on July 2, 2011 at 7:10 PM

Well done sir :)

IowaWoman on July 4, 2011 at 8:40 AM

In essence this ban eliminates any partial birth abortions, and of course that Satanic practice that President Obama voted in favor of FOUR TIMES in his home state called “Born Alive Abortions.”

Amen Kevin. Call it what it is. We need to be as frank with every issue; but Born Alive Abortions in particular are just barbaric.

hawkdriver on July 2, 2011 at 9:25 AM

I couldn’t believe this when I first heard about it years ago. My God!

Also, these “Progressives” have always hated orphanages. These would be a good alternative to abortions and could be used to discourage welfare mothers from having babies to get more $. There again, Republicans would be cutting funding for orphanages every few years to appease fiscal Conservative voters, so I guess it would all be a wash.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 4, 2011 at 2:23 PM

If rights are bestowed by social consensus, then they are just figments of our imagination. Social consensus can take them away.

AbaddonsReign on July 5, 2011 at 8:19 AM

If rights are bestowed by social consensus, then they are just figments of our imagination. Social consensus can take them away.

AbaddonsReign on July 5, 2011 at 8:19 AM

Yeah, it’s not like God gave us, you know, the ability to discover that certain things are true and others aren’t, or that certain behaviours are really BAD IDEAS. We must be spoon-fed everything from above or else it’s not valid. “Social consensus” my aunt’s glasses.

Uncle Sams Nephew on July 5, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Your say-so isn’t enough to establish that fact.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 12:41 PM

No, but DNA is enough to establish that as fact.

dominigan on July 5, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3