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

PRO-LIFE …. THAT’S THE MOST HUMANE POLITICAL POSITION ON EARTH.

BUT AMERICA IS FAILING ………… GOSH!

TheAlamos on July 2, 2011 at 9:18 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

Satanic and Obama…

Yup, that pretty much sums it up in two easily understood words.

turfmann on July 2, 2011 at 9:26 AM

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?

Agreed in theory on the rape and incest, but if the pregnancy is likely to kill the mother, then the child is hardly likely to survive anyway, and, even if it was, self defense applies.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 9:27 AM

Agreed in theory on the rape and incest, but if the pregnancy is likely to kill the mother, then the child is hardly likely to survive anyway, and, even if it was, self defense applies.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 9:27 AM

Totally agree. And it goes without saying that any pro-life Conservative should maintain that a woman always has the right to protect her own life. Any other stance would be absurd.

hawkdriver on July 2, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Dont short change what Kaisch and the Ohio GOP has done. Its more than just abortion.

http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-governor-signs-law-allowing-guns-bars-141945801.html

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/07/02/school-vouchers-more-than-double.html

State senators voted Tuesday to approve Ohio’s nearly $56 billion, two-year state budget bill, a far-reaching collection of policy changes that would privatize state operations, overhaul Medicaid, limit unions, ban most abortions at public hospitals and provide tax breaks on investments, income and estates.

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

Totally agree. And it goes without saying that any pro-life Conservative should maintain that a woman always has the right to protect her own life. Any other stance would be absurd.

hawkdriver on July 2, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Blake on July 2, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Totally agree. And it goes without saying that any pro-life Conservative should maintain that a woman always has the right to protect her own life. Any other stance would be absurd.

hawkdriver on July 2, 2011 at 9:34 AM

But apparently, neither the Ohio legislature or McCullough gives a sh*t about the woman’s life. Sickening.

Blake on July 2, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Ohio gets it right. Now we have to ban all abortions after a fetus is detected.

Mojave Mark on July 2, 2011 at 9:42 AM

From the article:

Ohio Right to Life also has expressed concerns about the heartbeat bill. The organization said the bill is unconstitutional and believes it is not wise to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer’s dollars defending it.

Blake on July 2, 2011 at 9:45 AM

and of course that Satanic practice that President Obama voted in favor of FOUR TIMES in his home state called “Born Alive Abortions.”

Nothing else describes it this accurately.

CurtZHP on July 2, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Agreed in theory on the rape and incest, but if the pregnancy is likely to kill the mother, then the child is hardly likely to survive anyway, and, even if it was, self defense applies.

Here’s the thing: Every pregnancy, every medical condition, every medical treatment has the possibility of being fatal.

What matters here is the intent and how treatment is carried out.

Directly killing an unborn child is wrong. There are very few instances where the child himself is the cause of problems, but something associated to the pregnancy. Treat the issue itself and if the baby dies during the treatment, it’s not an abortion.

There’s a vast difference from undergoing procedure x, which results in a miscarriage, and intentionally killing a child hoping it “solves” the health problems. The former is not prohibited, the latter is.

Funny how we’re all so concerned about the life of the mother but when stories about that butcher in PA, and other stories about fatal abortions that harm the mothers (never mind the others we don’t hear about that render women infertile, etc.) but the second a state passes pro-life legislation, the hysterics begin.

englishqueen01 on July 2, 2011 at 9:47 AM

Not smart, this is a na-na-na-na-na elections have consequences, in-yo-face piece of legislation. This is an ovverreach that even if you agree with surely recognize that literally zero chance of sticking. So what’s the point?

Raisedbywolves on July 2, 2011 at 9:49 AM

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

Really dude? Come on.

SoulGlo on July 2, 2011 at 9:50 AM

State senators voted Tuesday to approve Ohio’s nearly $56 billion, two-year state budget bill, a far-reaching collection of policy changes that would privatize state operations, overhaul Medicaid, limit unions, ban most abortions at public hospitals and provide tax breaks on investments, income and estates.

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

I’m very proud of the Ohio GOP led by Gov. Kasich, but there are still challenges ahead. Opponents of the collective bargaining law have made it a referendum and turned in 1M signatures last week so it will go before the voters in November.

Gov. Kasich isn’t the only one with a “titanium backbone”.

EternalVigilance on July 2, 2011 at 9:51 AM

Dont short change what Kaisch and the Ohio GOP has done. Its more than just abortion.

http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-governor-signs-law-allowing-guns-bars-141945801.html

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/07/02/school-vouchers-more-than-double.html

State senators voted Tuesday to approve Ohio’s nearly $56 billion, two-year state budget bill, a far-reaching collection of policy changes that would privatize state operations, overhaul Medicaid, limit unions, ban most abortions at public hospitals and provide tax breaks on investments, income and estates.

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

Yeah, darn pleased with their work so far, as a life long Ohioan. CCW reform, union reform, a balanced budget, and protections for the unborn… a darn good start.

knob on July 2, 2011 at 9:51 AM

So what’s the point?

Raisedbywolves on July 2, 2011 at 9:49 AM

Life.

bridgetown on July 2, 2011 at 9:52 AM

Agreed in theory on the rape and incest, but if the pregnancy is likely to kill the mother, then the child is hardly likely to survive anyway, and, even if it was, self defense applies.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 9:27 AM

With modern technology, maternal death is quite rare and if it happens it’s from something that could have been prevented if the woman sought medical treatment. That weak argument is constantly trotted out as a reason to keep abortions at the ready. Ironically, a woman has a higher chance at dying from a botched abortion than from giving birth after months of receiving prenatal care.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Although cases where the mother’s life is truly at risk because of her pregnancy or the impending birth are rare, I do know of one such case that happened in our community. It was a family with two boys and a third on the way. The mother’s life was in jeopardy if she gave birth. The young father left the decision up to his wife.

I remember meeting him when I coached his oldest son in baseball. He was always there with his two younger sons, cheering on the one who was playing the game. I never met her, but I know he had a remarkable wife.

Know It All on July 2, 2011 at 9:54 AM

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?

Awesome.

OmahaConservative on July 2, 2011 at 9:54 AM

Sorry, life of the mother comes first. Abortion legislation should not touch actual medical decisions between a physician and their patient.

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Sorry, life of the mother comes first. Abortion legislation should not touch actual medical decisions between a physician and their patient.

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Why is the mother more valuable than the baby?

OmahaConservative on July 2, 2011 at 9:57 AM

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.

Our nation’s founding documents authorize the govt to do a relatively few things.
Today, govt at all levels does almost everything except some of those few things, such as guard the border, & secure the “right to life.”

itsnotaboutme on July 2, 2011 at 9:57 AM

So what’s the point?

Raisedbywolves on July 2, 2011 at 9:49 AM

At least you were allowed a chance to be raised by wolves, others aren’t as fortunate.

ericdijon on July 2, 2011 at 9:57 AM

Abortion legislation should not touch actual medical decisions between a physician and their patient.

Um.

artist on July 2, 2011 at 9:58 AM

Life.

bridgetown on July 2, 2011 at 9:52 AM

Exactly right. This issue transcends “politics”; at least to me. It’s not a political issue but a life issue as you said. Elements of the Conservative community can be concerned with it or not I guess, but it doen’t matter me if we lose politically while we’re doing what I think should be first orders of business in the first place.

If not now, when?

hawkdriver on July 2, 2011 at 9:58 AM

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 9:55 AM

I know lots of moms who would give up their lives for their kids.

itsnotaboutme on July 2, 2011 at 9:59 AM

OmahaConservative on July 2, 2011 at 9:57 AM

Are you married?

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 9:59 AM

englishqueen01 on July 2, 2011 at 9:47 AM

That kind of seems besides the point. I was thinking about the things that are untreatable. It isn’t exactly common, but there should be “escapes hatches” for those rare events, and for things where the child is fatally deformed but still growing to term (the baby-with-brain-outside-of-skull thing comes to mind).

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:00 AM

The folks who praised the NY legislative action on gay marriage will, by default, be supportive of this similar state-specific act, right?

rogerb on July 2, 2011 at 10:00 AM

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…)

amazing how THAT fact doesn’t preclude you from being elected potus

I’ll have one of what the Ohioans are having!

That and their budget plans, good news to start a day

Sonosam on July 2, 2011 at 10:01 AM

Sorry, life of the mother comes first. Abortion legislation should not touch actual medical decisions between a physician and their patient.

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 9:55 AM

You know, George Tiller used that argument as a reason to murder many more babies through partial birth abortions. The woman would say that she suffers from depression and that is enough of a medical reason to justify murdering her baby. So, keep pushing that life of the mother comes first meme. I’m telling you the abortion doctors know how to exploit that one.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:02 AM

So, in effect, a pro-rapist, pro-incest, let the mother and fetus die Bill.

profitsbeard on July 2, 2011 at 10:03 AM

rogerb on July 2, 2011 at 10:00 AM

no doubt…

ericdijon on July 2, 2011 at 10:03 AM

With modern technology, maternal death is quite rare and if it happens it’s from something that could have been prevented if the woman sought medical treatment. That weak argument is constantly trotted out as a reason to keep abortions at the ready. Ironically, a woman has a higher chance at dying from a botched abortion than from giving birth after months of receiving prenatal care.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 9:53 AM

That doesn’t change the question of what to do once it has happened.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Ironically, a woman has a higher chance at dying from a botched abortion than from giving birth after months of receiving prenatal care.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Can you post a link that backs this up? Not that I don’t believe it, or that it doesn’t make perfectly good sense, but it would come in handy when I talk about this to my abortion loving family and aquaintances.

Also, the damn preview button is taking the day off again, so sorry for any errors.

surrounded on July 2, 2011 at 10:04 AM

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:02 AM

Then there needs to be a distinction in the law between “abortion doctors” and honest ob/gyns who are just following their Hippocratic oath.

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 10:05 AM

So, in effect, a pro-rapist, pro-incest, let the mother and fetus die Bill.

profitsbeard on July 2, 2011 at 10:03 AM

You’re so melodramatic!

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:06 AM

profitsbeard on July 2, 2011 at 10:03 AM

Does life occur because of the chance union of sperm and egg or is the chance meeting of sperm and egg celebrated with life?

ericdijon on July 2, 2011 at 10:06 AM

So, in effect, a pro-rapist, pro-incest, let the mother and fetus die Bill.

profitsbeard on July 2, 2011 at 10:03 AM

How does it encourage rape or incest? Particularly when it doesn’t touch things like Plan B.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:07 AM

Sorry, life of the mother comes first.
 
stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 9:55 AM

 
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf
 
Agreed. So what about the other 95%+ of abortions?
 
(see page five)

rogerb on July 2, 2011 at 10:07 AM

That doesn’t change the question of what to do once it has happened.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:04 AM

What to do when what happens? If the woman dies; bury her. If she has a medical complication; treat her to save her life and her child’s life. How hard is that?

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:07 AM

If the woman dies; bury her. If she has a medical complication; treat her to save her life and her child’s life. How hard is that?

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:07 AM

This.

surrounded on July 2, 2011 at 10:09 AM

What to do when what happens? If the woman dies; bury her. If she has a medical complication; treat her to save her life and her child’s life. How hard is that?

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:07 AM

Your missing the case in question, which is when the only treatment is aborting the baby.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:11 AM

rogerb on July 2, 2011 at 10:07 AMrogerb on July 2, 2011 at 10:07 AM

I’m against convenience abortions. And yes, “life of the mother” cases are a small percentage — so protect them!! Why is this hard? You people realize this opens the door to the govt telling people when they can have life saving treatments and when they cannot?

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 10:12 AM

Uh-huh…Rush was saying this week how the only states that are working like they should are R states and right now I am proud of being an Ohioan! Funny though,here locally,you will never see this news or anything positive John has done,lib newspapers.

ohiobabe on July 2, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Can you post a link that backs this up? Not that I don’t believe it, or that it doesn’t make perfectly good sense, but it would come in handy when I talk about this to my abortion loving family and aquaintances.

Also, the damn preview button is taking the day off again, so sorry for any errors.

surrounded on July 2, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Here ya go:
http://www.rachelnetwork.org/images/Deaths_Associated_With_Abortion_and_Childbirth.pdf
Also there is a higher risk of breast cancer due to abortions.
http://www.polycarp.org/overviewabortionbreastcancer.htm

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Your missing the case in question, which is when the only treatment is aborting the baby.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:11 AM

And what case would that be? No one has presented a condition where a baby must be aborted to save the life of the mother.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:17 AM

Then there needs to be a distinction in the law between “abortion doctors” and honest ob/gyns who are just following their Hippocratic oath.

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 10:05 AM

Sorry, I might be a bit ignorant about this topic; but I don’t know of any OB/GYNs that do abortions.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:20 AM

And what case would that be? No one has presented a condition where a baby must be aborted to save the life of the mother.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:17

Does it matter? Do you want the govt telling you that you cant do everything in your power to save your life?

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 10:21 AM

Sorry, I might be a bit ignorant about this topic; but I don’t know of any OB/GYNs that do abortions.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:20 AM

They tend to do all they can to save the mother and the baby.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:21 AM

And what case would that be? No one has presented a condition where a baby must be aborted to save the life of the mother.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:17 AM

Which is a good question, I suppose. I’ve only been going from what I have heard, which is that there exist such cases. There are definitely (rare) cases where the child is not spontaneously aborted, but cannot possibly survive birth.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:22 AM

You people
 
stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 10:12 AM

 
Consider winning friends/debates through discussion as intellectual equals instead of ideological opponents.
 

ealize this opens the door to the govt telling people when they can have life saving treatments and when they cannot?

 
Do you support Obamacare? Just curious.
 
englishqueen01 addresed the life-of-mother argument above already, btw:
 

There are very few instances where the child himself is the cause of problems, but something associated to the pregnancy. Treat the issue itself and if the baby dies during the treatment, it’s not an abortion.
 
There’s a vast difference from undergoing procedure x, which results in a miscarriage, and intentionally killing a child hoping it “solves” the health problems. The former is not prohibited, the latter is.
 
englishqueen01 on July 2, 2011 at 9:47 AM

rogerb on July 2, 2011 at 10:22 AM

Does it matter? Do you want the govt telling you that you cant do everything in your power to save your life?

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 10:21 AM

It does matter because unless you can present a condition that will cause you to die if you don’t abort your baby even after all the prenatal care, then your argument is moot.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:23 AM

Your missing the case in question, which is when the only treatment is aborting the baby.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:11 AM

No, the whackjob made it clear that the mother should just be allowed to die: If the woman dies; bury her.

Blake on July 2, 2011 at 10:23 AM

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:20 AM

Have you known a woman who has had a miscarriage? Do you know how they get the baby out? It’s called a “d and e.”

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 10:24 AM

Which is a good question, I suppose. I’ve only been going from what I have heard, which is that there exist such cases. There are definitely (rare) cases where the child is not spontaneously aborted, but cannot possibly survive birth.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:22 AM

true. But that doesn’t mean that the mother dies because the baby didn’t survive the birth.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:25 AM

Have you known a woman who has had a miscarriage? Do you know how they get the baby out? It’s called a “d and e.”

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 10:24 AM

Huh. I thought miscarriage generally involved the baby being expelled on its own. I hadn’t realized that there were cases were it was necessary.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:26 AM

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:23 AM

Fine, if you’re cool with Big Brother getting in between you and your doctor, then go for it. Just don’t call yourself a conservative.

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 10:26 AM

Have you known a woman who has had a miscarriage? Do you know how they get the baby out? It’s called a “d and e.”

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 10:24 AM

DUH! I use to be a firefighter/EMT. I know these things. What’s the point? What does that have to do with aborting a viable baby in order to save the life of the mother? In a miscarriage the baby is no longer viable.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:27 AM

So, in effect, a pro-rapist, pro-incest, let the mother and fetus die Bill.

profitsbeard on July 2, 2011 at 10:03 AM

You’re so melodramatic!

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:06 AM

That’s how the opponents will frame it.

With exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother, I support it.

Otherwise, it dies.

No majority will ever agree that a woman should be forced to bear a rapist’s or her own father’s child.

Or die, with her baby, to suit some strict interpretation of a pro-life law.

You have to be a realist in structuring laws, not absurdist.

profitsbeard on July 2, 2011 at 10:29 AM

Huh. I thought miscarriage generally involved the baby being expelled on its own. I hadn’t realized that there were cases were it was necessary.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:26 AM

After eight weeks, it’s generally too dangerous to let it happen on it’s own. The risk of bleeding and other complications. I know this from personal experience. You’re not out of the woods for a miscarriage until 12 wks.

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 10:29 AM

true. But that doesn’t mean that the mother dies because the baby didn’t survive the birth.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:25 AM

No, but waiting until full term to remove the baby in order to let it die can involve much more damage to the woman — particularly if the deformation is enough to force a C-section. If the child is doomed anyway, I’m not comfortable with forcing the mother to carry it to term — though if that’s what she wants, all I want is not to pay for it.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:29 AM

Fine, if you’re cool with Big Brother getting in between you and your doctor, then go for it. Just don’t call yourself a conservative.

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 10:26 AM

Don’t call yourself a conservative if you’re willing to kill a baby. You still haven’t presented a medical condition that involves killing a viable baby to save the mother. I’m waiting. In the meantime; here’s a little bit of the Declaration of Independence that explains it all:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:30 AM

After eight weeks, it’s generally too dangerous to let it happen on it’s own. The risk of bleeding and other complications. I know this from personal experience. You’re not out of the woods for a miscarriage until 12 wks.

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 10:29 AM

My wife just hit that mark. I’m hoping for a girl.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Don’t call yourself a conservative if you’re willing to kill a baby. You still haven’t presented a medical condition that involves killing a viable baby to save the mother. I’m waiting. In the meantime; here’s a little bit of the Declaration of Independence that explains it all:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:30 AM

That’s nice, but remember that it is the Constitution that forms the basis of our laws, not the Declaration, and there are situations where your rights are not absolute.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:33 AM

No majority will ever agree that a woman should be forced to bear a rapist’s or her own father’s child.

Or die, with her baby, to suit some strict interpretation of a pro-life law.

You have to be a realist in structuring laws, not absurdist.

profitsbeard on July 2, 2011 at 10:29 AM

In the case of rape and incest, there’s adoption. It’s not the fault of the baby that he or she came into this world in that way. With regards to the life of the mother. I’m still waiting to hear of what medical condition that the treatment is to abort the baby to save the mother.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:37 AM

That’s nice, but remember that it is the Constitution that forms the basis of our laws, not the Declaration, and there are situations where your rights are not absolute.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:33 AM

The Declaration if Independence is the first law in the US Code. Also, Life is always absolute because it’s been endowed by our creator; not the state.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:38 AM

rogerb on July 2, 2011 at 10:22 AM

Does it sound like I support Ocare? I want the govt out of my life, completely!

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 10:40 AM

No, but waiting until full term to remove the baby in order to let it die can involve much more damage to the woman — particularly if the deformation is enough to force a C-section. If the child is doomed anyway, I’m not comfortable with forcing the mother to carry it to term — though if that’s what she wants, all I want is not to pay for it.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:29 AM

If the child is not a viable life that means he or she has no heartbeat. Therefore; this law is irrelevant in cases where the baby dies in the womb or miscarries. Unless there is medical condition that proves that the woman can die because she carries a weak infant, then that argument is also moot.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:42 AM

Does it sound like I support Ocare? I want the govt out of my life, completely!

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 10:40 AM

Then you must be OK with suicide.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:43 AM

Then there needs to be a distinction in the law between “abortion doctors” and honest ob/gyns who are just following their Hippocratic oath.

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 10:05 AM

OB’s consider the baby as much their patient as the mother, so the hippocratic oath applies to both equally (coming from a 35 week pregnant woman on her third child).

citrus on July 2, 2011 at 10:44 AM

The Declaration if Independence is the first law in the US Code. Also, Life is always absolute because it’s been endowed by our creator; not the state.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:38 AM

Thank you for all your comments in this thread :)

citrus on July 2, 2011 at 10:45 AM

No majority will ever agree that a woman should be forced to bear a rapist’s or her own father’s child.
Or die, with her baby, to suit some strict interpretation of a pro-life law.

So what!? Have some balls and stand on principle. As I sit here and look at my baby girl, I wonder how this nation ended up the way it did. 40million plus babies murdered. And it’s because of the murderous left and people like you who let them get away with murder because you’re worried about how they will frame the argument.

With medical technology today the life of the mother can be saved. If she is a victim of rape or incest, I fail to see how killing the baby fixes or makes right what happened. Grow a pair you neanderthal.

jawkneemusic on July 2, 2011 at 10:46 AM

rogerb on July 2, 2011 at 10:22 AM

Congratulations!

My wife is due in a month, and it’s a boy. We are very excited. Maybe that’s why I’m a little touchy today. I love my wife very much — she is my soulmate — and pregnancy can be a very vunerable time.

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 10:46 AM

Sorry, meant to qoute Count to 10. OK gotta go.

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 10:47 AM

Thank you for all your comments in this thread :)

citrus on July 2, 2011 at 10:45 AM

:-D

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:48 AM

The Declaration if Independence is the first law in the US Code. Also, Life is always absolute because it’s been endowed by our creator; not the state.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:38 AM

No, it isn’t. As a general rule, killing is allowed in defense of the law, though usually as a last resort.
Claiming divine right won’t get you very far with me, most Americans, or even a lot of religious people.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:48 AM

No, it isn’t. As a general rule, killing is allowed in defense of the law, though usually as a last resort.
Claiming divine right won’t get you very far with me, most Americans, or even a lot of religious people.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:48 AM

So, tell me; what law did an unborn child violate to justify putting said unborn child to death?

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:51 AM

mother. I’m still waiting to hear of what medical condition that the treatment is to abort the baby to save the mother.

There is a condition called preeclampsia but it’s rare and is detectable early in pregnancy through blood tests and urine samples. In these cases both the mother and the baby can die and a C-section is needed. But again it’s rare, detectable and in most cases treatable.

jawkneemusic on July 2, 2011 at 10:53 AM

If the child is not a viable life that means he or she has no heartbeat. Therefore; this law is irrelevant in cases where the baby dies in the womb or miscarries. Unless there is medical condition that proves that the woman can die because she carries a weak infant, then that argument is also moot.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:42 AM

I’m not talking about cases where the child is already dead. A child can have a heartbeat without being viable. Remember that big case where the baby had no more brain than a brain-stem?

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:54 AM

So, tell me; what law did an unborn child violate to justify putting said unborn child to death?

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:51 AM

If it is a danger to the mother’s life, assault.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:48 AM

Just give it up dude. You’re not convincing anyone.

jawkneemusic on July 2, 2011 at 10:57 AM

If it is a danger to the mother’s life, assault.
Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:55 AM

LOL! Hahahaha! Are you kidding me!? I suggest you go get your dictionary and look up the definition of assault. With this inane logic, if the baby happens to survive and the mother does not, should the infant be charger with her death?

jawkneemusic on July 2, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Does it sound like I support Ocare? I want the govt out of my life, completely!
 
stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 10:40 AM

 
It was hard to tell. You seem to support the government telling populations of individual states what they should do. This part here:
 

And yes, “life of the mother” cases are a small percentage — so protect them!! Why is this hard? You people
 
stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 10:12 AM

 
Isn’t that “protect them” demanding additional (higher?) government/law intrusion regarding a state decision?
 
Regardless, thanks for the reply, and I appreciate your statement. Really, this scenario might be exactly what you want. You don’t have to move to Ohio, or, if you already do, you can move/pay taxes somewhere else more in line with your sensibilities.
 
That’s the beauty of states’ rights and a truly representative republic.

rogerb on July 2, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Charged*

jawkneemusic on July 2, 2011 at 11:02 AM

If it is a danger to the mother’s life, assault.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:55 AM

That’s reaching. LOL! In order for said infant to commit the crime of assault, he or she must have have the requisite moral sense. Unless the child stays in the womb until the age of 7, I dont see that happening.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 11:02 AM

LOL! Hahahaha! Are you kidding me!? I suggest you go get your dictionary and look up the definition of assault. With this inane logic, if the baby happens to survive and the mother does not, should the infant be charger with her death?

jawkneemusic on July 2, 2011 at 11:01 AM

If a mentally deranged person attacks you, do you have to let him kill you rather than shooting him to death, just because he would not be found competent to stand trial?

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 11:05 AM

That’s reaching. LOL! In order for said infant to commit the crime of assault, he or she must have have the requisite moral sense. Unless the child stays in the womb until the age of 7, I dont see that happening.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 11:02 AM

Whether they would be found culpable after the fact is irrelevant. See example above.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 11:07 AM

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.

As a conservative you should know that that is the govt’s main job.

Akzed on July 2, 2011 at 11:09 AM

If a mentally deranged person attacks you, do you have to let him kill you rather than shooting him to death, just because he would not be found competent to stand trial?
Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Oh c’mon now. That’s a non sequitur and you know it. A mentally derranged person A) should be in a mental health facility and B) is still capable of making his/her own decision to a better extent than an unborn child.

Care to try again?

jawkneemusic on July 2, 2011 at 11:10 AM

Have you known a woman who has had a miscarriage? Do you know how they get the baby out? It’s called a “d and e.”

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 10:24 AM

Its called a D&C, they use that to get any remnants out of the womb from a miscarriage.

There is a condition called preeclampsia but it’s rare and is detectable early in pregnancy through blood tests and urine samples. In these cases both the mother and the baby can die and a C-section is needed. But again it’s rare, detectable and in most cases treatable.

jawkneemusic on July 2, 2011 at 10:53 AM

They do start testing for preeclampsia when the mother is first pregant. It doesnt become a problem until around 26 weeks. My sister had this along with diabetes complications, the doctors rarely go with a C-section just having the baby naturally is all that needed (except in rare cases where the preeclampsia is extremely bad). Just having the baby causes the high blood pressure/sugar to start adjusting itself and making the mother and the baby healthier. Although my nephew was born at 32 weeks and spent some time in NICU, he is now a 4 year old!

Oh and when babies are dead/dying in utero, the OB does not opt for abortion, they usually give the mother options to choose from, but most prefer inducing the mother, and letting her naturally give birth, giving her a whole baby to hold and mourn aftewards.

Count 10 and stefanite, we are all still waiting for the medical reasons that a baby needs to be aborted to save the mother…..

akerralls on July 2, 2011 at 11:11 AM

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?

Awesome.

OmahaConservative on July 2, 2011 at 9:54 AM

Agreed. This is always one argument by the abortionists I never got.

If it is a danger to the mother’s life, assault.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Here is the crux of the abortion argument. Is the mother’s life at risk or a mother’s health? One requires a must harder hill to climb. I never want to take such a choice out of a woman’s hand. Still, can anyone argue here that all 2.5 million abortions in the United States every year are done because a woman’s life is in danger? If true, this is the most damning accusation to the American health system ever made; the need to kill 1/5 of all pregnancies to save the mother’s life.

itsspideyman on July 2, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Whether they would be found culpable after the fact is irrelevant. See example above.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 11:07 AM

STRAW MAN!!!!!!!!! We’re not talking about protecting oneself from a mentally deranged person (that probably wouldn’t be in that state if he or she took his or her medication)but an innocent unborn child; which you have yet to present what condition would justify aborting said innocent child to save the life of the mother.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 11:12 AM

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Loosertarian logic on display… comparing an innocent child to a deranged murderer. My gosh.

Akzed on July 2, 2011 at 11:12 AM

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Ok riddle me this: there’s an explosion in an office bldg, and I am blown through a window on the second floor. I land on you and kill you but I live. Am I to be charged with murder?

Akzed on July 2, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 11:05 AM
Loosertarian logic on display… comparing an innocent child to a deranged murderer. My gosh.
Akzed on July 2, 2011 at 11:12 AM

Exactly.

jawkneemusic on July 2, 2011 at 11:16 AM

I don’t have a problem with having no “escape” clause for rape and incest because while emotionally tramatic women survive those. However in valid instances where it’s either terminate the pregnancy or lose the mother IMO the woman has first claim to the body. Perhaps these instances need a review to confirm that it is a life or death issue but the pro-life crowd has to accept that having no “life of the mother” instance makes their position a loser for many people. While I’m against abortion I would not support a bill that forces a woman to carry a baby at the cost of her own life.

katiejane on July 2, 2011 at 11:16 AM

“Rape and incest” were the big showstoppers by the pro-abortion crowd pre-1973.

Rape or incest are now the excuses for about 2% of abortions.

“All who hate me love death,” -YHWH.

Akzed on July 2, 2011 at 11:21 AM

But of course we should execute murderers left and right, because those people are no longer people, while the people who may be people in utero are definitely people. What hypocrisy! There’s no possible way to morally justify capital punishment and oppose abortion. Let’s save the poor innocent babies, but gleefully kill the hundreds of people on Death Row, most of whom were convicted in hopelessly unjust trials…

pm123 on July 2, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3