Ohio House Comitte Passes Restrictions on Abortion

[LAGC]

While you continue to distract, you also continue to not respond to my post about when people should be making this "choice" about babies, and it is not after they are concieved.

Well, short of suggesting everyone should just abstain from sex like the Puritans did, accidents can and do happen. Especially when alcohol is involved.

The bottom-line is that no woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term if they aren't ready to be mothers yet.

We have a bad enough problem with abused and neglected kids in this country without adding millions more into the mix.

It seems that you have decided that attacking the character of someone you have never met is the easier option.

I'm not attacking you, my friend. Believe me, I'm glad you don't really think abortion is the same as actual murder of a fully-developed, born child, and that abortion doctors don't need to be assassinated for "killing babies."

That makes you civilized.

Only a very few twisted individuals (like Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder) truly believe in it, and their actions speak louder than words.

[ltorlo64]

Well, short of suggesting everyone should just abstain from sex like the Puritans did, accidents can and do happen.

The Puritans did not believe in abstaining from sex, they believed in sex only after marriage, when there would be a viable way to care for any children that were produced from sexual activity. Again with the liberal notion of all or nothing when that is not what was true.

Especially when alcohol is involved.

The bottom-line is that no woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term if they aren't ready to be mothers yet.

If a person gets drunk and in involved in a car crash that kills or injures people we do not consider that an accident. We take the person to criminal court and, if found guilty, we place the people in jail and give them a life long record. If a man gets drunk and forces himself on a woman (or vice versa, or on someone of the same sex) it is considered rape and the use of alchohol will not stop the person from being found guilty (or should not be allowed to stop the person from being found guilty) and having to be held responsible for their actions. If a woman gets drunk, has consensual sex and gets pregnant, we allow her to kill the baby so that she will not be affected by the consequences of her actions (she still is, but that is a different discussion), using the argument that she was drunk, accidents happen.

In some cases we expect people to practice self-control, in others we say self-control is too hard. While birth control will sometimes fail it is, for the most part, very effective. I know of very few couples who did not start having families when they planned to. I know a larger percentage of single people who had children that were "a surprise." How is it that married couples can control when a pregnancy happens but single people cannot?

If a woman is not ready to raise a baby, and if a man is not willing to raise a baby, they should not be engaging in actions that would cause a baby to be made. This seems fairly straight forward and we use this thought process in many other areas. If a person is old enough to take care of themselves, they can cook, clean, use proper hygene, etc, does not mean that we kick them out of the house to make them live on their own. But when a child goes through puberty our society tells them it is alright to have sex even though they are not ready to raise a child. Why do we tell them to wait on one hand but tell them to just go ahead on the other?

We have a bad enough problem with abused and neglected kids in this country without adding millions more into the mix.

It is a wild assumption that of the 1 million abortions that are conducted for convenience each year that all those children would be abused and neglected, again with the all or nothing mindset of a liberal. Granted, some would, but most people will do their best to take good care of a baby. Every parent I have ever talked to, even those who could not wait to have children, say they were not ready to be a parent, they did not know what they were getting themselves into, until about a week after the baby was born. When the baby is placed in your arms you become ready to be a parent.

The bottom line, if a woman is does not want to be a mother (or a man a father) they should not do things that will lead to this occuring.

I'm not attacking you, my friend.

Let me remind you.

Come on, ltoro64, let's be honest here. You don't really believe abortion is the same as murder, nor do 99.99% of people out there.

Most people would consider this being called a liar.

What you feel comfortable with doing, of course, is up to you and your conscience.
All I'm suggesting is that you might want to just step back and look inward a bit and ask yourself how much you really believe in it. Because your actions don't seem to match your words.

Here, implying I am a hypocrite. Most rational people would consider these to be attacks.

Believe me, I'm glad you don't really think abortion is the same as actual murder of a fully-developed, born child, and that abortion doctors don't need to be assassinated for "killing babies."

I have went back and reviewed my previous posts and I am not sure what you got out of them that leads you to this conclusion. I have been unwavering in my assertion that abortion is the same as murder.

That makes you civilized.

What makes me civilized is that I believe in the rule of law. I believe we need to change our laws so that abortion is seen for what it is, murder, and then we need to try, and hopefully convict, those medical practitioners who make their money killing children. Even though our countries laws do not yet allow for this I do not advocate vigilante justice in any way.

Only a very few twisted individuals (like Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder) truly believe in it, and their actions speak louder than words.

And this is where you really show your hand. If I do not take part in vigilantism, I am a hypocrite, if I do I am twisted. So in your mind it is impossible for a sane person to believe that abortion is wrong and is murder. It is here that the discussion has to end as your closed mindedness prevents further useful, and has actually prevented any useful, discourse.

[FunkyPertwee]

The Puritans were pretty obsessed with sex. They were infatuated with the sexuality of their women and are now know as having some pretty kinky private sex lives.

The witch trials had a lot to do with the Puritan perception of the female libido, especially when you consider their extremely superstitious world view in which literally everything in the natural world becomes a representation of a spiritual force on another plane.

[5.56NATO]

The Puritans were pretty obsessed with sex. They were infatuated with the sexuality of their women and are now know as having some pretty kinky private sex lives.

The witch trials had a lot to do with the Puritan perception of the female libido, especially when you consider their extremely superstitious world view in which literally everything in the natural world becomes a representation of a spiritual force on another plane.

Quite right. If not adored circumspectfully, the clitoris of those days would take on a life of its own!

[FunkyPertwee]

Quite right. If not adored circumspectfully, the clitoris of those days would take on a life of its own!

They believed that sexually unsatisfied women would seek out sexual gratification from the physical incarnation of Satan himself, if they remained unmarried and therefore unsexed.

[5.56NATO]

I'm sure that's the first idea that popped into every unsexed womans mind at the time, to have sex with the debil. Conversely, the witches of that day to this make use of a geegaw to have sex wit de debil!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanette_Abadie

[LAGC]

In some cases we expect people to practice self-control, in others we say self-control is too hard. While birth control will sometimes fail it is, for the most part, very effective. I know of very few couples who did not start having families when they planned to. I know a larger percentage of single people who had children that were "a surprise." How is it that married couples can control when a pregnancy happens but single people cannot?

Did you wait until you were married to have sex? That's one thing I find very curious about authoritarian conservatism in general, this notion that sex should only be reserved for procreation, not pleasure in its own right.

Particularly when it comes to women, there is this overwhelming sense of entitlement as to what social conservatives think women should and should not be able to do with regards to their own bodies.

Perhaps "Puritan" is the wrong term here, and just plain "misogyny" would suffice.

If a woman is not ready to raise a baby, and if a man is not willing to raise a baby, they should not be engaging in actions that would cause a baby to be made. This seems fairly straight forward and we use this thought process in many other areas. If a person is old enough to take care of themselves, they can cook, clean, use proper hygene, etc, does not mean that we kick them out of the house to make them live on their own. But when a child goes through puberty our society tells them it is alright to have sex even though they are not ready to raise a child. Why do we tell them to wait on one hand but tell them to just go ahead on the other?

Is it society or is it nature? You seem to be downplaying one of our core biological imperatives here...

It is a wild assumption that of the 1 million abortions that are conducted for convenience each year that all those children would be abused and neglected, again with the all or nothing mindset of a liberal. Granted, some would, but most people will do their best to take good care of a baby. Every parent I have ever talked to, even those who could not wait to have children, say they were not ready to be a parent, they did not know what they were getting themselves into, until about a week after the baby was born. When the baby is placed in your arms you become ready to be a parent.

Countless stories of newborns being left and abandoned in dumpsters and public toilets would beg to differ. Young women who were too afraid to let anyone know that they had gotten pregnant, too ashamed to get an abortion.

The bottom line, if a woman is does not want to be a mother (or a man a father) they should not do things that will lead to this occuring.

Screaming hormones make that kind of thinking impractical, to say the least. Which is why countless studies have shown that teaching kids abstinence in school leads to more unplanned pregnancies than acknowledging that teenagers are going to have sex regardless and to teach them to use proper birth control instead.

What makes me civilized is that I believe in the rule of law. I believe we need to change our laws so that abortion is seen for what it is, murder, and then we need to try, and hopefully convict, those medical practitioners who make their money killing children.

Does that include abortion doctors who treat women impregnated through rape and incest? Or those women who would die from complications if they carried their pregnancies to term? What about all those women who use the morning-after pill? Should they all be charged with murder as well?

It is here that the discussion has to end as your closed mindedness prevents further useful, and has actually prevented any useful, discourse.

No need to project, my friend. If you're unwilling to critically examine your own inner-beliefs and prejudices, it's not me who is being closed-minded here.

[ltorlo64]

Did you wait until you were married to have sex?

My wife and I did not have sex until our wedding night.

That's one thing I find very curious about authoritarian conservatism in general, this notion that sex should only be reserved for procreation, not pleasure in its own right.

Once again you are using the all or nothing arguments used by liberals. It is a very lazy way to look at things and shows a marked lack of understanding of the subject and the inability to use critical thought. I have never denied that sex is for more that procreation, but procreation is a major result of sex. Let’s take a look for just a moment at the other things that sex does. It brings pleasure, it allows people to share an intimate connection, and it shows allows two people to show their trust for each other in a tangible, physical way.

When sex is practiced outside of a marriage relationship the pleasure is still there. The intimate connection is broken though the mind still tries to make it happen (this is especially true with women). This causes all sorts of issues such as depression and low self-esteem as people want that intimate connection, but the more they have sex outside of marriage (meaning a life-long committed relationship) the harder it is to have that intimate connection the mind associates with sexual intercourse. Sex also requires trust to be truly enjoyed and when the relationship is broken, or never existed, it makes trusting another person harder, in some cases impossible.

I find it curious that liberals deny the other, more important aspects of sex, building intimate relationships, learning to trust, and procreation while focusing on the most shallow and transient part of sex, pleasure. Conservative views on sexual relations, if followed, would not prevent people from having sex but it would prevent the negative effects (STDs, mental disorders, the murder of babies, etc) that come with having a “if it feels good, do it” mentality. This liberal mindset on sex puts self as all important, to the point of being able to choose to kill a baby just because it is inconvenient.

Particularly when it comes to women, there is this overwhelming sense of entitlement as to what social conservatives think women should and should not be able to do with regards to their own bodies.

You focus on the woman, and as I have already pointed out and you ignored, in the vast majority of cases already had the option of making a choice, and they chose to partake in activity that could lead to a baby. I find it interesting that liberals feel an overwhelming sense of entitlement as to being able to kill humans that they find inconvenient. The baby is not part of the woman’s body, though it is protected and nourished by the woman’s body. To ignore this goes back to lazy thought processes.

Perhaps "Puritan" is the wrong term here, and just plain "misogyny" would suffice.

So you go from Puritanical views on sex to a hatred of women when it is shown that Puritans enjoyed sex. This is another interesting thought process for liberals. Many studies show that women live better when they are married, especially if children are involved, and enjoy sex more. Conservatives try to protect and encourage families because we realize it is better for the women, the men, and the children and we are called misogynistic by liberals. This, while liberal positions trap women in low paying jobs, saddle them with single parenthood, and mostly ensure that they will be dependent on government to survive. You have to remind me as to why the conservative stance is misogynistic. It seems to me that the liberal view is misogynistic, it enslaves women to mediocre sex, social and economic lives.

Is it society or is it nature? You seem to be downplaying one of our core biological imperatives here...

Great question, but I would say you are the one downplaying things. In our society we expect a man and woman to be at least 18 to make good parents. In other societies this age drops to 16-17 and even lower. I would argue that by 14 most people have the ability to be a good parent but they have not been raised to have the maturity to be a good parent. Of course, in our society, you need to be at least 18 to be able to hold a job that will allow supporting a family but that does not mean you are not mature enough to raise a child. In answer to you it is both.

On this subject, though, you need to remember that the majority of abortions are done for convenience. It is not the people involved are not ready to be parents but that the people do not want to be parents. They don’t think they can support a family, they are still in college or high school, it is not a good time for them, etc. This is not society or nature, this is the height of selfishness to kill another human because it is not convenient for you to be a parent.

Countless stories of newborns being left and abandoned in dumpsters and public toilets would beg to differ. Young women who were too afraid to let anyone know that they had gotten pregnant, too ashamed to get an abortion.

You and I have different definitions of countless. To me countless is the grains of sand at the beach, the leaves on the tress of a forest, or the stars in the sky. It is unfortunate that no one keeps records on this but the best information I could find is about 22,000 year. That is too high, but it is not countless. Countless is an exaggeration.

As to your point, it seems you are making mine. People who are not ready to have a baby and raise a baby should not be doing things that will cause a baby.

Screaming hormones make that kind of thinking impractical, to say the least. Which is why countless studies have shown that teaching kids abstinence in school leads to more unplanned pregnancies than acknowledging that teenagers are going to have sex regardless and to teach them to use proper birth control instead.

Screaming hormones, along with a ceaseless diet of entertainment that show that having sex is the highest pleasure you can have (while not showing the results) is what makes this impractical. In the 1940s before sex was the main fare of entertainment we did not have this problem. It is not impractical, but it is fought against by liberals and specifically by the entertainment industry. It is not teaching abstinence that is the problem. It is teaching abstinence and then having every other thing the child is taught be against abstinence that is the problem. Look at the rate of sexual activity, was it before or after marriage, and the age that it begins to occur, over time. As entertainment has become more sexual and as parents have become less available sexual activity before marriage has increased and the age at which children start engaging in sex has become lower. In those areas of our culture where families are the most broken you find the youngest average age of sexual activity. This is not about a one week module in a one hour a day class. This is a much larger problem.

Does that include abortion doctors who treat women impregnated through rape and incest? Or those women who would die from complications if they carried their pregnancies to term? What about all those women who use the morning-after pill? Should they all be charged with murder as well?

As only about 50,000 of the over 1 million abortions each year are performed for this reason it is a non-issue. This goes back to the liberal all-or-nothing argument. Instead of saying we need to allow abortions for any reason and then using the rape/incest argument to justify it, it would be more honest to argue for abortion in those cases, but that is not the liberal position, it is all or nothing. I think a very difficult discussion needs to be had, especially in the case of a mother who has to choose between herself and her child (especially with other children at home), but this is not what is done. Instead of a honest, logical discussion, liberals result to an emotional argument to allow abortions.

The morning after pill should be banned. It has not purpose except to kill babies as quickly as possible. As for the women who use it, I am sure you realize that not all of them will be pregnant so it is illogical to even bring that into the argument, except for the emotional response that it will evoke.

No need to project, my friend. If you're unwilling to critically examine your own inner-beliefs and prejudices, it's not me who is being closed-minded here.

I am not projecting. I have provided facts and logical arguments to which you have called me a liar and a hypocrite (which you are still doing, by the way). It is telling that you do not see it and have not apologized for it. As I pointed out before, your assertion that the only way for me to prove I am against abortion and believe it to be murder is to kill abortion providers and then to point out that only crazy people who would kill abortion doctors are crazy shows just how closed minded you are. There is no way, in your mind, for abortion to be wrong, no matter what facts are presented. It is also telling that one of your main arguments is that I be a hypocrite, no one can actually believe what I say and live it out, it is impossible. We have never met but you know what I do, what I spend my time and money on, how I interact with my friends, even though what you know is wrong. But that is what I do, but you refuse to believe it, this is just how closed your mind is.

I hope you have a great Thanksgiving. And I hope you take your own advice and examine your inner-beliefs and prejudices, because they run much deeper than you realize.