Ohio Constitutional amendment - caution - only read with a strong stomach

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheSingleBillie

I am against it for a healthy uterus owner carrying a healthy fetus, as I consider that infanticide in the third trimester when the fetus can live outside independent of the womb.

Nobody is doing that. Nobody is advocating for any such thing.

apnews.com...

A push by Virginia Democrats to loosen restrictions on late-term abortions is erupting into a fierce partisan clash because of a viral video in which a lawmaker acknowledges her legislation would allow abortions up until moments before birth. Gov. Ralph Northam added gas to the fire Wednesday by describing a hypothetical situation in a radio interview where an infant who is severely deformed or unable to survive after birth could be left to die. That prompted accusations from prominent Republicans that he supports infanticide.

This is part of the slippery slope, once you say an infant born alive can be set aside and left to die, which is what he said - since late term abortion for ANY reason at all is legal and thus moral according to Democrats - setting any infant aside that was unwanted for any reason to die could become ethical if enough liberals and leftists say it is ethical. If you say, this couldn't happen, what about the liberal push for all forms of sexuality to be normalized and now we have seen drag queens www.msn.com... in school approved events doing lap dances on teenagers, and it has been normalized by liberals. Now you see in CA schools teaching 10 year olds about anal sex californiaglobe.com...

There are 6 states and D.C. that allow unrestricted abortion right now. Democrat run states. www.axios.com...

In those 6 states a healthy uterus owner can legally, without any issue or penalty, abort a full term fetus at 40 weeks, even if the fetus is viable, healthy and there is nothing wrong with the baby or the uterus owner - except the full term healthy baby is unwanted. They can also have the fetus dismembered and removed from the uterus without any regard for the pain caused the fetus. Even if you say "no one does that" - Democrats in 6 states have made it legal to do and thus tacitly have said it is moral as well as acceptable to do so.

a reply to: TheSingleBillie

This is what you said.

I am against it for a healthy uterus owner carrying a healthy fetus, as I consider that infanticide in the third trimester when the fetus can live outside independent of the womb.

I said, no one is advocating for abortion on a " a healthy uterus owner carrying a healthy fetus".

setting any infant aside that was unwanted for any reason to die could become ethical if enough liberals and leftists say it is ethical.

You're the only one using the word "unwanted". And Norstrom was describing what already happens, every day, in every state, where an infant is born with fatal disease.

If you say, this couldn't happen

I'm saying that nobody is advocating for aborting healthy fetus from healthy "uterus owners".

In those 6 states a healthy uterus owner can legally, without any issue or penalty, abort a full term fetus at 40 weeks, even if the fetus is viable, healthy and there is nothing wrong with the baby or the uterus owner

This is a bald face lie. It has zero basis in reality.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheSingleBillie


I said, no one is advocating for abortion on a " a healthy uterus owner carrying a healthy fetus".


You're the only one using the word "unwanted". And Norstrom was describing what already happens, every day, in every state, where an infant is born with fatal disease.


I'm saying that nobody is advocating for aborting healthy fetus from healthy "uterus owners".

In those 6 states a healthy uterus owner can legally, without any issue or penalty, abort a full term fetus at 40 weeks, even if the fetus is viable, healthy and there is nothing wrong with the baby or the uterus owner

This is a bald face lie. It has zero basis in reality.

Where people HAVE ADVOCATED for there to be zero restrictions on abortion -

that MAKES it legal and therefore they ADVOCATED to have it legal, even if they did not intend to do so.

It IS LEGAL in 6 states and DC for a healthy uterus owner (I know that liberals despise the word mother as transphobic and so am using liberal approved language, because leftist liberal Democrats insist men can birth babies)
to abort a healthy 40 week old full term fetus
to kill a viable healthy 40 week old fully capable of surviving outside the womb fetus
to dismember limb by limb a healthy full term fetus
if the owner of the uterus wants it done.
IT IS LEGAL and those who pushed for the legislation for no restriction abortion, pushed for the above to happen, whether they intended to or not. Unintended consequences are still consequences that one must take responsibility for.

By making it legal to do, the tacit consequence is that it has been deemed moral and just to do in the eyes of those who pushed for it to be legal.

Nordstrom was advocating for completely unrestricted abortion when he made that statement. Unrestricted abortion allows for the killing of a full term healthy infant being carried by a healthy uterus owner. You can't tell me that is not true, because it does allow for infanticide of a "full term fully viable and healthy fetus" as long as the infant hasn't passed through the birth canal. There is a very slippery slope of unintended consequences here that he advocated.

If one advocates for unrestricted abortion, they unintentionally advocated to allow a healthy uterus owner to be able to decide during the natural beginning stages of labor at 40 weeks for a healthy infant to be dismembered without anesthesia, or shot full of a chemical that kills, or have its skull pierced.

The person advocating unrestricted abortion may have not intended to advocate for that, but that IS the unintended consequence of that demand.

Liberals, leftists and many Democrats openly demanded, cheered for, championed the cause of unrestricted abortion, and need to take responsibility for the unintended possible consequences of that demand and advocacy.

If something is legal and can happen, it will happen regardless of if you want it to or not, because society has said by making it legal, it is moral and perfectly ok to do.

a reply to: TheSingleBillie

Where people HAVE ADVOCATED for there to be zero restrictions on abortion -

You're being hyperbolic again. When you say "zero restrictions" what you really mean is "exemptions", like for rape, incest, the health and wellbeing of the woman, and finally, the life of the woman.

First, the final decision belongs to the women's doctor, not the "uterus owner". Secondly, What you actually oppose is legislation that considers the woman first, and fetus second.

It IS LEGAL in 6 states and DC for a healthy uterus owner (I know that liberals despise the word mother as transphobic and so am using liberal approved language, because leftist liberal Democrats insist men can birth babies)
to abort a healthy 40 week old full term fetus

(Bolding mine)
It is not. Access to "abortion on demand" is cut off once the fetus achieves viability in each state and district that you've listed.

All of these states, Ohio included, have voted to restore the protections and guidelines that Roe V Wade laid out. No more, no less.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheSingleBillie

Where people HAVE ADVOCATED for there to be zero restrictions on abortion -

You're being hyperbolic again. When you say "zero restrictions" what you really mean is "exemptions", like for rape, incest, the health and wellbeing of the woman, and finally, the life of the woman.

First, the final decision belongs to the women's doctor, not the "uterus owner". Secondly, What you actually oppose is legislation that considers the woman first, and fetus second.

It IS LEGAL in 6 states and DC for a healthy uterus owner (I know that liberals despise the word mother as transphobic and so am using liberal approved language, because leftist liberal Democrats insist men can birth babies)
to abort a healthy 40 week old full term fetus

(Bolding mine)
It is not. Access to "abortion on demand" is cut off once the fetus achieves viability in each state and district that you've listed.

All of these states, Ohio included, have voted to restore the protections and guidelines that Roe V Wade laid out. No more, no less.

I did not list the states, I linked to an article about those states..

They do not cut off at viability. Look at this link worldpopulationreview.com...

States with NO restrictions on abortion: Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon

DC www.theguardian.com...

Still anyone who advocates unrestricted abortion unintentionally is advocating for the ability of and the morality of a healthy uterus owner to abort a full term healthy fetus minutes from leaving the birth canal.

a reply to: TheSingleBillie

States with NO restrictions on abortion: Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon

Okay. Wow! I learned something new. Thanks. That's great news!

So, these states don't impose legal restriction on abortion, but leave it up to the medical community's best judgement and standards, as it should be. Politicians have no business calling the shots when it comes to doctors' medical recommendations and personal medical decisions.

So, I stand by my statement that the final decision to abort is the doctor's, the hospital's and finally, the insurance company.

What this does mean, is that if a woman who is carrying a viable fetus tries to abort, maybe using pills, and now needs medical intervention to save her uterus, her life...she, nor her doctors, can be prosecuted for an illegal abortion. It doesn't mean clinics are now open, ready will and able to do late term, on demand abortions for women who just had a fight her baby daddy.

Also, none of those states are Ohio. In Ohio the voters just restored the guidelines and protections that were laid down by Roe V Wade.

originally posted by: TheSingleBillie
This is where the baby's head is expelled through the uterus and the physician jabs a knife or scissors into the throat of the baby as it is expelled.

That isn't what they do, so why are you so dramatic?

Once they see the head coming out they stick a hollow rod into their brain and suck it out. You see when it is still an "it" then it is OK to do that since it isn't human yet.

"Sarcasm Off"

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Okay. Wow! I learned something new. Thanks. That's great news!

You should move to Oregon, it's your kind of place... You would love Portland... All abortions are legal, all drugs are legal, and assisted suicide is legal and recommended for anyone, and they advertise for kids and teens to come there and get their trans meds and gender treatments free on the taxpayers, diesel gas is illegal to buy in Portland.... Don't just talk the talk, walk the walk too and you sure can there.

Gee I seem to remember a lot of people saying NOBODY wants up to birth abortions.

It was a conspiracy theory, it was a right-wing Christian fantasy, etc...

*shrugs* disgusting and anyone that supports it needs to take a long hard look at their belief systems.

a reply to: TheSingleBillie

Well, you know........It was only a matter of time.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Gee I seem to remember a lot of people saying NOBODY wants up to birth abortions.

Nobody wants one. But, sometimes it's necessary.

a reply to: Xtrozero

You should move to Oregon, it's your kind of place...

Stop it. This isn't about me.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Irishhaf

Gee I seem to remember a lot of people saying NOBODY wants up to birth abortions.

Nobody wants one. But, sometimes it's necessary.

My daughter had an emergency c-section to save her life. It took less than 30 minutes from start to finish. The actual time it took to remove my grandchild from the womb to save her life was approximately 5 minutes after they put her out.

A late term abortion takes far longer up to hours. Look up how long a late term abortion takes, it normally takes twice as long or longer than a c-section. A chemical killing of the infant followed by induced labor can take quite a few hours. Dismemberment of the infant takes much longer than a c-section.

Which is more likely to save the life of the uterus owner? A c-section OR leaving the full term infant alive, with a brain, and not dismembered or dead from a chemical injection.

Save the life of the mother after week 24 means a c-section if it really is an emergency. The mother's abdomen is also opened up to allow any rapid abdominal surgery to take place.

You can't say no one has had a late term abortion just because they didn't want a healthy baby and didn't want anyone else to have it. There is a years long wait in the US to adopt a newborn by the way, in case you didn't know. Friends of ours waited 2 years. HIPA prevents you from knowing the reason anyone had a late term abortion or any medical procedure. If it is legal to do, you can almost be guaranteed some MD will do it and some person will do it.

Unrestricted abortion is a license to kill a healthy nearborn being carried by a healthy uterus owner, that you can not deny. There are unethical MD's and you know it who will do anything for a buck. They aren't common, thank goodness, but they do exist and you know it.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Irishhaf

Gee I seem to remember a lot of people saying NOBODY wants up to birth abortions.

Nobody wants one. But, sometimes it's necessary.

It is not necessary for the life of the uterus owner, not at all.

A c-section is faster and saves the life of the uterus owner far safer and far quicker than a late term abortion.

Now for a baby without a brain, or sure to die upon leaving the womb, that is another story and I have no problem with those exceptions.

I object to the states that allow unrestricted abortion for any reason, especially if the infant is healthy.

This may sound a little harsh but if I were a Doctor and a woman came in about to give birth and was in a state of hysteria and insisting on a late stage abortion I'd knock her ass out with a sedative deliver the baby via c-section, sterilize her while youre in there so it doesnt happen again, sew her up and put her in a recovery room until she woke regained consciousness.

Inform her of the status of the healthy infant and if she's still adamant about not wanting to fulfill the role of Motherhood and take the child home and raise it properly place the baby on the adoption register for infertile couples who would be abolutely overjoyed.

I know this opens all sorts of legal ramifications about bodily autonomy and a woman's right to choose but in the world I walk in there are so many women using abortion as their primary method of birth control because they refuse to use preventative measures and it's absolutely out of control and vile behavior.

Some women are very feral and don't gives two shots about anything other than their own personal pleasures and it needs to be nipped in the bud.

I'm schizophrenic and everytime I check in for my medication refill they ask if I've been sterilized yet. I tell them no and that my husband and I practice abstinence so we dont run the risk of accidental conception of a child that would have serious issues because of our genetic makeups.

If this form of eugenics can be advocated on folks like me in respect to mental illness they damn sure can be applied to serial abortion practioners who can't seem to keep their damn legs shut.

I know that's terribly Draconian of me but that's where I stand on the issue.

Is get into the complications of serious birth defects and nonviability but I need to chill out for a bit before posting further.

a reply to: TheSingleBillie

Now for a baby without a brain, or sure to die upon leaving the womb, that is another story and I have no problem with those exceptions.

Those kinds of cases are the only kinds of cases I'm talking about. Those are the only kinds of cases that a hospital would agree to accept, and that insurance would cover.

I think anyone would be hard pressed to find a doctor that would perform a late term abortion on a healthy, viable fetus. Even though there are unscrupulous people in all professions, adoption is more profitable.

Why not just make it legal to sell babies ? I mean if the woman is going through the pain of birth why not profit from it .

It would get a lot of these baby mommas off public assistance .

I am a Christian woman, so I feel that I have the right to speak on this matter. Abortion is murder, plain and simple. A real mother would die to protect her kids, period. Abortion is essentially the sacrifice of babies to Molech, aka Satan. God tells us in His word what He thinks about the sacrifice of innocent babies and children to Baal. He doesn't like it!

Any state or country that pushes abortion will be punished by God; I have no doubt about that.

Also, one thing I always found hypocritical about prochoicers was that they would always scream "my body, my choice," yet they were the same individuals who pushed for the persecution of those of us who refused to take the C19 jab that was riddled with luciferase, nanobots, and only God knows what else. So, what happened to the whole "my body, my choice" during the C19 tyrannical lockdowns?

Shame on anyone who supports abortion!