Hope you don't mind if I borrow your theme, ex.

The Ohio House passed a bill banning abortion after a heartbeat is detectable (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/28/us-abortion-ohio-heartbeat-idUKTRE75R7NC20110628), which can be as early as 5-6 weeks.

Democrats are predictably outraged:


Democrats in the Ohio House said the heartbeat bill goes too far.

"This bill gives the government the ultimate power, the ultimate power to intrude upon the most personal and intimate decisions of our lives, of women's lives, frankly," said Rep. Connie Pillich.

The Ohio House also passed a ban on late-term abortions and a provision to opt Ohio out of taxpayer abortion coverage under Obamacare.

Not content with that, the state of Ohio also passed a budget that bans abortions from being performed in public hospitals, prohibits abortion coverage in insurance plans of local public employees and other pro-life measures including guaranteeing pro-life students equal access to funding and facilities on college campuses.

Finally, a government is on the RIGHT side of history in protecting the most helpless among us and recognizing the HUMANNESS and PERSONHOOD of the unborn child.

I'm on the RIGHT Side of history here, are you?

You forgot to add this:


Neither bill was as contentious as the heartbeat legislation, which does not contain exceptions for rape, incest or the life or health of the mother.

That's why they are opposed to it.

More misinformation from the right... as expected.

I'm on the RIGHT Side of history here, are you?Hello Steve:

I KNOW what the RIGHT side of every issue in the world is, except this one.

excon

More misinformation from the right... as expected.

I didn't forget anything and the only one spreading misinformation is you, I furnished the link to that which you cite. If all you wish to contribute is attacks, I'm sure Huffpo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/) would welcome you.

Hello Steve:

I KNOW what the RIGHT side of every issue in the world is, except this one.

I'm trying to help you out here, ex, protecting the life of the child is the correct side of history, without a doubt.

Hi speech you have got that one right!

Finally, a government is on the RIGHT side of history in protecting the most helpless among us and recognizing the HUMANNESS and PERSONHOOD of the unborn child.
What's going to keep that child (who was born of a 15-year-old mother who is still in school and has no visible means of support) fed, clothed, and basically alive?

Girl it is still possible to give a child up for adoption isn't it?

Girl it is still possible to give a child up for adoption isn't it?
So, if a pregnant girl or woman cannot support a child for whatever reason when she has it (although she may be able to in the future), she must give it up for adoption?

The best option then is to castrate all males when they reach puberty so there won't be any unwanted pregnancies.

So, if a pregnant girl or woman cannot support a child for whatever reason when she has it (although she may be able to in the future), she must give it up for adoption?

The best option then is to castrate all males when they reach puberty so there won't be any unwanted pregnancies.

Now Girl you could try giving females a brain first, after all they consent and take the risk. Sexual intercourse is not mandatory but a life style choice with consequences. No one suggested adoption be forced but you ignored the option, indicating how much ignorance there is in this debate. We have long passed the pont where concept of responsibility is even thought about, just a stupid condoning of irresponsible behaviour. What I certainly don't suggest the government add to the problem by supporting the mother and child until she, maybe, becomes responsible enough to support herself and child, there are viable alternatives to abortion. So try thinking with your brain instead of your hormones.

Now Girl you could try giving females a brain first
So it's all the fault of the females?

So find a way to keep the males away from the females until all are financially and emotionally and physically ready to have children.

So try thinking with your brain instead of your hormones.
It's the males' hormones; it's the girls' looking for love.

So it's all the fault of the females?

So find a way to keep the males away from the females until all are financially and emotionally and physically ready to have children.

It's the males' hormones; it's the girls' looking for love.

Yes segregation that will work, you could try legislating that by raising the age of consent so no beer and sex before 25. Should I start building a wall around my daughter now? You could bring back lynch law starting with lynching scantily clad females. It is not the fault of the males they are attracted to females, it is the fault of the females for failing to set ground rules and keeping to them. As I said earlier give them a brain and turn it on

As to love looks like they found it or what artificially equates to love in our society. Males below the age of 25 aren't looking for love, just a good time and you can't fool me it isn't the same for women

It is not the fault of the males they are attracted to females, it is the fault of the females for failing to set ground rules and keeping to them.
Okay, now I have your number.

What's going to keep that child (who was born of a 15-year-old mother who is still in school and has no visible means of support) fed, clothed, and basically alive?

So because you're unsure the mom can support the child, the child should have no chance? Every child deserves a chance to live. One child is no less valuable than another, they are all of infinite value and worth.

So because you're unsure the mom can support the child, the child should have no chance? Every child deserves a chance to live. One child is no less valuable than another, they are all of infinite value and worth.
So who will support the child?

Is that the argument... that a child should be snuffed over financial concerns ?

Hello tom:

Boy, you know how to bring an argument down to its core, don't you?

But, if your concern is about the welfare of the baby, and NOT financial matters, then it would seem like you'd be supportive of programs that nurture the baby AFTER he or she is born.

But, I don't find that stance in your politics... Apparently, it IS about money after all.

excon

Is that the argument .... that a child should be snuffed over financial concerns ?
The kid has to eat and have a roof over his head. Who will pay for that (for 18 years or less)? What if he is profoundly autistic or physically disabled and needs lifetime care?

But, if your concern is about the welfare of the baby, and NOT financial matters, then it would seem like you'd be supportive of programs that nurture the baby AFTER he or she is born.



Nice try. My belief in reforming the social safety net is not to destroy it but to make sure it's solvent for the people who really need it ;although I could just as easily use the libertarian line as best espoused by James Madison...
“I cannot lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

The left in contrast think the safety net is strained because they continue to push people onto the dependency of the net. Their answer clearly ;based on support of abortion on demand ;is to encouraged the disadvantaged to off their kids. It must be so. Every time the issue is brought up the example of 'raising the kids of the unfortunate' is floated as the reason it should be the law of the land.

nice try.
So the kid will die of starvation while living on the street?

Is that the argument .... that a child should be snuffed over financial concerns ?
Well there seems to be absolutely no concern for the mother in that bill so maybe it's fair that the baby can be snuffed out if the mother can.

Agreed ;there should be a 'life of the mother 'provision .

agreed ;there should be a 'life of the mother 'provision .


36685

agreed ;there should be a 'life of the mother 'provision .

Don't you already have that in the proabortion provisions. I think the problem would be solved if for every aborted child there had to be an aborted mother

I think the problem would be solved if for every aborted child there had to be an aborted motherWhy don't you get your local representative to propose this for a new law?

don't you already have that in the proabortion provisions. I think the problem would be solved if for every aborted child there had to be an aborted mother

The mother has a right to defend her life. If the pregnancy ;in the view of the attending physicians threatens the life of the mother ,then that is a fair and reasonable exception.

I have no problem with a life of the mother provision myself, but these "what if" arguments are ridiculous. Well, what if? You'd kill a child because something might not go exactly right? Give the kid a chance.