Ohio voting for reproductive rights

[Lakhota]

 

[Lakhota]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wrong. Killing the innocent is not "reproductive rights." Quite the contrary.

Wrong.

It’s not the role of government to interfere in citizens’ private lives - whatever your subjective, personal opinion.

 

[Rumpole]

Abortion is not “reproductive medical treatment”. There is nothing “reproductive” about it, the reproductive act has already been done.

Reproduction creates life. Abortion destroys it.

Just like Trump destroyed lives on 1/6.

Anti-abortion laws result in more deaths of women, especially poor, young, women.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Unkotare]

Wrong.

It’s not the role of government to interfere in citizens’ private lives - whatever your subjective, personal opinion.

So, you don't want the police to arrest people who chop up their neighbors with a knife? What is the government's primary goal?

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Rumpole]

This is a lie. Every state has an exception for the life of the mother.

at least 10 states have no exception for rape/incest, regardless of age.

 

[g5000]

​

​

​

​

View attachment 855369​

​

Republicans Not Backing Down On Abortion Bans Despite New Election Losses​

“We can’t give in to the idea that the federal Congress has no role in this matter because if it doesn’t, then the pro-life movement is basically not going to exist," Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance said.

GOP Not Backing Down On Abortion Bans Despite New Election Losses​

So much for the GOP supporting states rights.

I knew that fake claim would collapse sooner or later.

 

[BS Filter]

Ohio votes on abortion rights in test of post-Roe backlash

Vote will have both political and medical consequences that go beyond Ohio as supporters of Issue 1 are cautiously optimistic

www.theguardian.com

A referendum is surely the best way to resolve these issues. Why is the rest of the country not holding similar polls ?

Oh, so abortion never was banned. The false narrative drumbeat since the Supreme Court ruling has shown the leftist lie for what it is. A lie. Many of us on the right told you dumb ass that abortion wasn't banned. It was simply going to be voted on...you know..Democracym

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Anti-abortion laws result in more deaths of women, especially poor, young, women.

Every abortion results in the death of an inno0cent human being. Every one. Thousands of innocent children every day, more than a million every year, are murdered in this manner.

There is no harm that you can honestly attribute to any restrictions or outright bans on this savage practice, that comes anywhere close to the harm that this practice directly causes.

 

[BS Filter]

at least 10 states have no exception for rape/incest, regardless of age.

So?

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh, so abortion never was banned.

It sure was and is. In several states.

And despite their lies to the contrary, the GOP weasels are pushing for a federal ban.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Nope! Not life and health of the mother. Being forced to carry an unviable fetus to term is unconscionable.... mental abuse....
and possible sepsis from carrying your unviable child to term, is unconscionable.

Forcing a raped 10 year old to give birth is unconscionable.... forcing 11, 12, 13, 14 year olds too....is wrong and unhealthy for most of them....

If a health condition develops that puts the life of the mother at risk, then abortion is legal in every state.

I agree that rape and incest should be allowed to have an abortion. I agree that it is unconscionable to force someone who has been raped to carry that persons baby to term. BUT, that abortion MUST be carried out before the point that it forms into a fetus. There should be no waiting for 5 months debating whether or not you want the baby. That decision should be made right away when it’s still in the cellular stage. That decision should also apply to ALL abortions.

See? Not everyone who leans right falls into your stereotype.

 

[ThisIsMe]

There were laws proposed that did not include the exception.

No exception for life of mother included in Idaho GOP’s abortion platform language - Idaho Capital Sun

But did they ever get passed? From what I’m reading, every state includes abortion for the life of the mother.

 

[Rumpole]

Every abortion results in the death of an inno0cent human being. Every one. Thousands of innocent children every day, more than a million every year, are murdered in this manner.

Science will tell us that a fetus is human, but so is a cell from a human, 'human'. Human organisms are human.

Before viability, are fetuses 'persons'? This is the eternal question.

You see one is biology but law of humans is not merely based on biology, it's based on the judicial and/or legislative decree of personhood. Only legislative or judicial decree can ascribe to an organism the legal status as a 'person'. This isn't as simple as you might believe.

Ascribing legal personhood to a living organism is a nuanced and deeply philosophical issue that courts and legislative bodies approach with a multifaceted consideration set. The ability of an organism to experience pain, pleasure, emotions, and other subjective experiences is often a starting point for such deliberations. This sentience and consciousness are typically linked to the presence of a nervous system and a certain level of brain function, suggesting a threshold of experience that might warrant legal recognition.

Communication and sociability also play a significant role in these discussions. The capacity of the organism to communicate or interact with others, including humans, could influence its consideration for personhood. This involves assessing whether the organism has a language or engages in other forms of complex communication that signify a level of social integration or intelligence.

The degree of autonomy and self-determination exhibited by the organism is another critical factor. The more an organism can make independent choices and exercise some form of free will, the stronger the argument for its recognition as a person in the legal sense. Similarly, the biological complexity of the organism, particularly its similarity to humans or other legally recognized persons, might be relevant, suggesting a kind of kinship or equivalence that merits legal consideration.

The importance of the organism within certain cultures or religions could also influence its status. In many parts of the world, indigenous cultures ascribe personhood to natural entities like rivers or mountains, reflecting a belief system that honors a deep connection between humans and the natural world.

The role of the organism in its ecosystem and the potential environmental consequences of its actions or its protection are also considered. This ecological perspective recognizes the interdependence of life and the potential ripple effects that legal recognition might have on environmental conservation and biodiversity.

Legal precedent within the jurisdiction or comparative law from other jurisdictions where similar recognitions have been made can guide new decisions. Courts and legislatures often look to past decisions as a foundation for their reasoning, seeking consistency and continuity in the law.

Broader ethical implications of granting personhood are also at the forefront of these considerations. The moral status of the organism, the rights it should be afforded, and the duties of humans towards it are weighed with great care. This ethical dimension often intersects with practical implications, such as the enforceability of rights or duties on behalf of the organism and the legal mechanisms necessary to represent its interests.

The current scientific understanding of the organism's capabilities, intelligence, and social structures informs these discussions, grounding them in empirical evidence. This scientific perspective ensures that the debate is informed by the latest findings and understandings of the organism in question.

The potential economic and social impacts of recognizing the organism as a legal person are also scrutinized. This includes considering the effects on industries, research, and public perception, ensuring that the decision aligns with societal values and practical realities.

Policy objectives that might be served by granting personhood, such as conservation efforts and promoting biodiversity, are part of the broader context within which these decisions are made. These objectives reflect a legislative intent to address larger issues through the mechanism of legal recognition.

Compliance with international treaties, conventions, and agreements that may relate to the organism or species is another layer of complexity. These international obligations can compel domestic legal systems to align with global standards and practices.

Lastly, the dependency of the organism on human stewardship for survival and well-being can create a legal duty of care that necessitates recognition. This aspect of dependency and stewardship highlights the responsibility humans have towards other living beings, particularly those that are vulnerable or endangered.

In sum, the question of whether to ascribe legal personhood to a living organism is a tapestry woven from many threads—scientific, ethical, cultural, ecological, and legal. Each thread contributes to the strength and color of the final decision, reflecting the intricate and interdependent nature of our world.

The complexity of the issue, plus a heavy dose of politics, is probably why, some 233 years or so into the American experiment, no judicial decree or legislative decree of life beginning (i.e., 'personhood') beginning at inception has been achieved. It's not that simple. In fact, it's such a huge hot potato it's not much of a wonder why courts seem to not want to go there.

There is no harm that you can honestly attribute to any restrictions or outright bans on this savage practice, that comes anywhere close to the harm that this practice directly causes.

Abortion laws increase deaths in women. That is a fact. If you are anti-abortion, you are pro-death. Terminating a fetus before viability is not 'death', not in law, but termination of a woman's life is death, and you are promoting it.

According to a report by the Commonwealth Fund, states that have restricted access to abortion services had maternal death rates in 2020 that were 62% higher than in states preserving access to abortion services1. Between 2018 and 2020, the maternal death rate increased twice as fast in states that now have abortion restrictions1.​

​

Overall, death rates from any cause among women of reproductive age – 15 to 44 – were 34% higher in abortion-restriction states than in abortion-access states1. The report also says that in 2019, fetal or infant death rates in the first week of life occurred at a 15% higher rate, on average, in states with abortion restrictions than in states with wider abortion access1.​

​

Another report by the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that women in states with abortion bans are up to three times more likely to die during pregnancy, childbirth or soon after giving birth2. This report also found that states with abortion bans have higher infant mortality rates and teen pregnancy rates2.​

A study from the University of Colorado, Boulder, estimates that maternal mortality rises by 24 percent in the year after a ban is implemented3.​

You see, Your argument rises or falls on 'personhood', which, as I established above, is a philosophical consideration for a legal or constitutional determination, which has yet to be achieved -- adding to the ordeal a whole host of aforementioned factors. Until personhood is legally or constitutionally established at inception, your point is moot, in law, in morals, in philosophy, and whatever else you want to toss into the argument.

Besides, most of the motivation by the right on abortion stems from their religious belief, which is curious, because there are numerous citations in Bible where it is clear that fetus is treated more like chattel, but definitely not like a 'human'.

In fact, the most direct citation that life begins at birth is Genesis 2:7, it is written that “God formed man and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. So, I'd like to know where this belief that a fetus before viability is 'life' comes from, because it doesn't come from the Bible.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Human rights matter to everyone.

Certainly, but you seem to post a lot of threads about things that happen inside the US, most of them critical of the Republican Party, and I’m just wondering, what’s you point, none of this affects you. In this case, this is an issue going on in our country. I see you all have decriminalized abortion, and here, it’s a states rights issue. What you just saw in Ohio is our “democracy” in action.

 

[ThisIsMe]

at least 10 states have no exception for rape/incest, regardless of age.

True, but that wasn’t the argument being made.

 

[BS Filter]

It sure was and is. In several states.

And despite their lies to the contrary, the GOP weasels are pushing for a federal ban.

You're a liar. A stupid one. Is abortion now legal in Ohio?