Ohio voters overwhelmingly approve constitutional amendment to protect abortion rights

originally posted by: Boogerpicker
a reply to: quintessentone

Funny, I left my job with the Feds because they threatened my job if I didn't take an experimental injection. Wasn't my body, my choice then was it?

And you obviously didn't like it and felt it overstepped your human rights, correct?

a reply to: dust2023

Well, it was literally every single federal employee... so I'm sure there will be a massive class action suit eventually.

a reply to: quintessentone

Nice try. It doesn't matter how I felt did it? And ot doesn't now either. I have no sympathy for women who want to end a human life just because they can't pay their phone bill. End of story.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This is why states rights are so important.

Sure, in Ohio you can get an abortion.

In Oregon you can legally buy drugs.

States cannot dictate what other states want.

And that's the main point, federal government should be minimal, at best and not dictate to states what they want.

If there was a vote in each state you would hardly find any states not allowing abortion.

*shrugs*

That's up to individual states, so far many states have gone for near total bans.

The mob mentality does not work within the confines of the US Constitution.

You mean democracy doesn't work?

What's wrong with having referendums in each state for this very serious issue?

Since when democracy and the will of the people is called now 'mob mentality'.

Because we're a Representative Republic, NOT a democracy.

We are a democracy with representatives in both the Senate and the House. Referendums are part of the democratic process. It happened in Ohio and can happen everywhere abd not just for abortion.

I wonder what would happen if hypothetically there was a law to protect a father's rights and women who wanted an abortion would first have to consult with the father, which would be mandated prior to any procedures, AND to birth the child and pay support if the father wanted the child, even though the mother did not.

🤷🏻 seriously though..

The father has no say so but will be railroaded equally, if not harder than the above hypothetical simply by the mother deciding to have the child against the will of the father, so what's the difference??

Women can stand on "My Body" and that's just a ideological mantra, nothing more. The father however can't say, "I don't want the child" and the mother MUST abort it, right?

How do you think a would-be father that wants the baby feels about that? Does it even matter to women?

I have had PLENTY of pals over the years that have had their significant other "take care of it" without first talking to the father, only for the father to find out later and be devastated. Probably happens more than my naive noodle could imagine.

Sure ladies, your body indeed, but the life created is a product of two people, not one. Women used to be ashamed of getting abortions and now they throw gleeful parties and conduct howling rallies in celebration.

It's really not a good look but somehow an abortion is a representation of women's lib.

(In my best Owen Wilson voice) "Really? You don't think that's a bit, I don't know.... tacky, maybe??"

I think men are excluded and included in the process without their full consent because '#mybody', but that creation growing inside you is not your body. It's yours AND the father's flesh and blood combined. Simple biology.

I think that should be reconciled; the absolute absurdity that a father has no say in the demise of the child he helped to create. If the mother so chooses, she can abort his child, or if she fancies, she can make him pay for one he doesn't want. The father has no leeway, input or standing as it pertains to their child's demise by the mother.

Honestly, why shouldn't a father be able to hold the mother criminally liable for killing his baby if she can hold the father criminally liable for not paying for a decision he's entirely excluded from?

Why is it just "her" baby biologically, but "his" child financially?

I think that's a facet of this issue that needs to be addressed.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This is why states rights are so important.

Sure, in Ohio you can get an abortion.

In Oregon you can legally buy drugs.

States cannot dictate what other states want.

And that's the main point, federal government should be minimal, at best and not dictate to states what they want.

If there was a vote in each state you would hardly find any states not allowing abortion.

*shrugs*

That's up to individual states, so far many states have gone for near total bans.

The mob mentality does not work within the confines of the US Constitution.

It’s at the point now where three wolves are voting on how many babies to eat for dinner.

a reply to: dust2023

We are always hearing from the left about the sanctity of democracy, and here you have a human issue kicked out of the ivory tower and down to the masses to VOTE on, which is DEMOCRACY, and for some reason they can't stand it being that way.

First, we don't vote on constitutional rights. In the DOBBS case, for the first time in US history, SCOTUS chose to revoke a constitutional right, that the people previous retained, from the people.

Secondly, every time, since the DOBBS decision, that the issue has gone to the ballot, and the people do vote, they vote to preserve the rights that SCOTUS removed as written in ROE. So, there is no reason for leftists to be angry when the issue does go to the people.

Anyway, the person that posted the Alito references, I will probably get to that after my work week ends because I am sure it is vastly more complicated than that. I am sure that was just one reference out of many that were sited for precidence, which is something you see in nearly every legal decision that ever occurs coming from the judiciary.

Okay, you do that. However, I assure you it's not every day that a SCOTUS decision cites a medieval judge, who had 2 women executed for witchcraft, as an historic precedent to back up his reasoning to revoke a constitutional right from the people.

originally posted by: Mengelon

We are a democracy with representatives in both the Senate and the House.

No. We are a constitutional REPUBLIC with the institution of democratic elections.

originally posted by: Boogerpicker
a reply to: quintessentone

Nice try. It doesn't matter how I felt did it? And ot doesn't now either. I have no sympathy for women who want to end a human life just because they can't pay their phone bill. End of story.

It does matter if you felt your freedoms were being trampled upon. What you feel or want is of no concern when it comes to others' freedoms and human rights.

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This is why states rights are so important.

Sure, in Ohio you can get an abortion.

In Oregon you can legally buy drugs.

States cannot dictate what other states want.

And that's the main point, federal government should be minimal, at best and not dictate to states what they want.

If there was a vote in each state you would hardly find any states not allowing abortion.

*shrugs*

That's up to individual states, so far many states have gone for near total bans.

The mob mentality does not work within the confines of the US Constitution.

It’s at the point now where three wolves are voting on how many babies to eat for dinner.

I don't think referendums is what you described. It's the best possible way to decide if states will allow abortions instead of some right wing republicans who don't necessarily represent the will of the people.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Mengelon

We are a democracy with representatives in both the Senate and the House.

No. We are a constitutional REPUBLIC with the institution of democratic elections.

We are a democracy with representatives

The United States is a representative democracy. This means that our government is elected by citizens. Here, citizens vote for their government officials. These officials represent the citizens' ideas and concerns in government.

www.uscis.gov...

originally posted by: Mengelon
We are a democracy with representatives

We are a republic.

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,"

CONSTITUTIONUS.COM

A republic is where the people delegate their responsibility to elected representatives in government to make decisions.

A democracy is a form of government where every person has a voice. This could be by representation or directly.

Is the United States a democracy or a republic?

The United States of America is defined as a constitutional republic.

A Democracy would mean that every person would vote on every issue every time. A Republic would mean that every person would vote on a representative, who in turn would vote on every issue. We have a REPUBLIC.

a reply to: FlyersFan

They don't teach Civics in schools anymore.

As for on topic... its at the state level where it should be.

Voters voted for it *shrugs* thats on them.

Wonder how long till they allow 8 or 9 month abortions like some groups are pushing for.

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: dust2023

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: dust2023
Personally, I love how up in arms people get about this issue.

It certainly gets people emotional.

Probably because we love the wider social implications (which many of are secretly racist) and at the same time we hate the individual implications (young women that get abortions will at times develop mental health issues afterwards). Me, I say that SCOTUS kicking it down to the states was a good idea. We are always hearing from the left about the sanctity of democracy, and here you have a human issue kicked out of the ivory tower and down to the masses to VOTE on, which is DEMOCRACY, and for some reason they can't stand it being that way.

HAHA freaking HA.

Anyway, the person that posted the Alito references, I will probably get to that after my work week ends because I am sure it is vastly more complicated than that. I am sure that was just one reference out of many that were sited for precidence, which is something you see in nearly every legal decision that ever occurs coming from the judiciary.

When state populations vote they vote on many issues all at once, offer a referendum to one issue only and the majority of people will vote differently. As in Ohio, it is plain to see what will happen when it comes to women's rights being taken away.

I also reject that the issue of abortion is PURELY a womans right. Men should have a say in the matter if the child can be proven to be theirs and they do or do not want the female to have an abortion. Although I have to be honest that most men probably do not care if a woman they had sex with had or has an aborion, as most women they have sex with these days, they are not emotionally attached to them in any way, shape, or form. Such is the "sexual revolution".

Must be weird to be a woman and know that your genetic suicide is at hand because society doesn't REALLY want you for anything other than a few moments of pleasure here and there.

Regardless, we are currently led by women in the west, and therefore in so many places it will be regarded as a woman only issue.

With all referendums all adults vote not just women, so men do have a say in the matter with this type of voting.

Hey, women are now allowed to enjoy sex these days too.

This is true and it's a very strong argument that nobody can go against it. You want abortions? Fine! Put it in a referendum and see what happens.

Ohio had a ban on abortions and it was overturned by the people and the judges who blocked the ban. My opinion is that very few states will vote in favour of abortion.

My opinion may sound unrelated to the topic.
But it is intimately related.
1 of 5 children being raised by men in families today are not their DNA.
Men have a right to know.
A woman who births a child ALWAYS knows who the mother is, as does the man.
But historically the man can never be certain unless she was a Virginia.
With technology today, and women's sexual liberation.
The man, every man, should have the right to know and the decision to be accountable for raising and supporting the child to be his and his alone.
Mandatory DNA testing for every child to determine paternity.
And the right to have a say to determine if a child lives or not be equally considered.
And pay the breeders and tax them if they choose to abort at institutions that sell baby parts.
That is the moral thing to do. No wait...that would be the ethical thing to do if you suffer the consequences of lacking morals.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
As for on topic... its at the state level where it should be.

Voters voted for it *shrugs* thats on them.

Wonder how long till they allow 8 or 9 month abortions like some groups are pushing for.

I am hoping for up till 18 yo.
Or when the kid signs off parental responsibilities and provides for himself.

It completely solves the unruly children problem.

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: network dude
the SCOTUS sent this back to the states to decide and Ohio did.

Alabama—Near-total ban.
Arkansas—Near-total ban.
Idaho—Near-total ban. ...
Kentucky—Near-total ban. ...
Louisiana—Near-total ban. ...
Mississippi—Near-total ban.
Missouri—Near-total ban.
Oklahoma—Near-total ban.

those states so far did not. If you are into killing babies, you will want to live in a state the allows for such a thing. If you are against abortion, then living in a state that doesn't allow abortion might be more to your liking.

Should they give the vote to the people to decide instead of going for total bans? I say yes!

See what happened in Ohio?! Republicans wanted to ban abortions and the people said no.

the SC ruled that the COTUS didn't have anything in it referring to abortion, so this wasn't and shouldn't be a federal issue, so it was ruled it would become a states issue. This is what the majority of the state wanted. It's the most fair way to deal with such a controversial issue. (IMHO)

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Mengelon
We are a democracy with representatives

We are a republic.

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,"

CONSTITUTIONUS.COM

A republic is where the people delegate their responsibility to elected representatives in government to make decisions.

A democracy is a form of government where every person has a voice. This could be by representation or directly.

Is the United States a democracy or a republic?

The United States of America is defined as a constitutional republic.

A Democracy would mean that every person would vote on every issue every time. A Republic would mean that every person would vote on a representative, who in turn would vote on every issue. We have a REPUBLIC.

I have given you the link from a very recognised source: www.uscis.gov...
We are a representative democracy.

And people don't have to vote for every matter in referendums and on every issue every time. Most if not all democracies around the world are like us. They have representatives.

But you're missing the point I am afraid and the argument made, we can't have referendums because we are don't want the mob to rule. Then the argument changed to, we can't have referendums because we are a republic. Neither is true.

a reply to: FlyersFan

A democracy is a form of government where every person has a voice. This could be by representation or directly.

The United States of America is a republic that governs under a representative democracy and uses a combination of socialism and capitalism as is economic model.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: network dude
the SCOTUS sent this back to the states to decide and Ohio did.

Alabama—Near-total ban.
Arkansas—Near-total ban.
Idaho—Near-total ban. ...
Kentucky—Near-total ban. ...
Louisiana—Near-total ban. ...
Mississippi—Near-total ban.
Missouri—Near-total ban.
Oklahoma—Near-total ban.

those states so far did not. If you are into killing babies, you will want to live in a state the allows for such a thing. If you are against abortion, then living in a state that doesn't allow abortion might be more to your liking.

Should they give the vote to the people to decide instead of going for total bans? I say yes!

See what happened in Ohio?! Republicans wanted to ban abortions and the people said no.

the SC ruled that the COTUS didn't have anything in it referring to abortion, so this wasn't and shouldn't be a federal issue, so it was ruled it would become a states issue. This is what the majority of the state wanted. It's the most fair way to deal with such a controversial issue. (IMHO)

We don't disagree on this.
My argument remains the same and we should give the vote to the people to decide on certain important matters.