• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

Ohio senate passes heartbeat bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
421
Location
Corbin, KY
#1
Ok, let me get this out of the way first. My view (read again) is abortion is murder.

Now, with that out of the way, let's continue.

Here is a link:

Ohio Senate unexpectedly passes 'heartbeat' bill: Ohio Politics Roundup | cleveland.com

Now, I know to Republicans abortion becomes some kind of religious moral pressing issue, but let's look at this from a logical perspective.

In the article it says:

"During his Ohio House speech, Kasich also said that Ohio is "on the verge of a recession" as state revenues continue to fall below expectations. As I explain, newly released data shows state tax revenue fell short of projections both for last month and for the year to date."

Ok, so let's say a woman has irregular periods, so when she misses hers she thinks nothing of it. The article states about six weeks for a heartbeat. Now, let's say this woman is poor (as in broke). Congratulations going broke Ohio, you created a child that will rely on tax payer money to be raised. New burden on Ohio created.

An abortion for some woman who has enough sense to realize she cannot afford a kid or the alternative? I know the right wingers will find this a right move. But yet you same right wingers will complain about the government programs that will support this child.

This is a moral issue and the government has no business in forcing morals. I support the right for everyone to choose because I am not my brothers keeper (or sisters in this case). And I would rather a child have a good chance at life and I would especially like the burden not placed on the tax payer.

So what is it then? Programs for the poor children the right creates or the moral issue is left to the person? It doesn't work both ways.
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
1,063
#2
Ok, let me get this out of the way first. My view (read again) is abortion is murder.
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. That being said, do you let your finances dictate your morals? If times got tough in your household would you kill one of your kids to save some money? I would not have to think too long to believe that you would not.

You also stated that "This is a moral issue and the government has no business in forcing morals." If this is true then the government has no business enacting or enforcing any laws against murder, theft, rape, incest or a whole host of other reprehensible acts.
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
822
Location
Palatine, IL.
#3
Ok, let me get this out of the way first. My view (read again) is abortion is murder.

Now, with that out of the way, let's continue.

Here is a link:

Ohio Senate unexpectedly passes 'heartbeat' bill: Ohio Politics Roundup | cleveland.com

Now, I know to Republicans abortion becomes some kind of religious moral pressing issue, but let's look at this from a logical perspective.

In the article it says:

"During his Ohio House speech, Kasich also said that Ohio is "on the verge of a recession" as state revenues continue to fall below expectations. As I explain, newly released data shows state tax revenue fell short of projections both for last month and for the year to date."

Ok, so let's say a woman has irregular periods, so when she misses hers she thinks nothing of it. The article states about six weeks for a heartbeat. Now, let's say this woman is poor (as in broke). Congratulations going broke Ohio, you created a child that will rely on tax payer money to be raised. New burden on Ohio created.

An abortion for some woman who has enough sense to realize she cannot afford a kid or the alternative? I know the right wingers will find this a right move. But yet you same right wingers will complain about the government programs that will support this child.

This is a moral issue and the government has no business in forcing morals. I support the right for everyone to choose because I am not my brothers keeper (or sisters in this case). And I would rather a child have a good chance at life and I would especially like the burden not placed on the tax payer.

So what is it then? Programs for the poor children the right creates or the moral issue is left to the person? It doesn't work both ways.
This is an easy one. If a women has irregular periods and is so broke she cannot afford a baby...then she should have either kept her legs CLOSED or use birth control. The women created the pregnancy, not the Republicans.
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
5,908
Location
175 DME, HEC 358° Radial
#4
The women created the pregnancy, not the Republicans.
Pretty sure some dumb man played a major role in the pregnancy.

The canned right-wing response to reproductive health is an engineered recipe for failure:

1. People WON'T stop having sex, just because you say so. So, pregnancies will occur.

2. Republicans are against providing sex education that demonstrably reduces unwanted pregnancy and STDs.

3. Republicans are against providing birth control services for low income families which would further reduce unwanted pregnancies.

4. Republicans want to abolish all abortions, which is a last resort method to eliminate unwanted pregnancies.

5. Republicans are against social programs that would provide for feeding and health care for children born out of unwanted pregnancies.

6. Republicans are against social programs that would help place children born out of unwanted pregnancies into foster and adoptive families.

7. Republicans are not stepping up and adopting these children in anywhere near sufficient numbers.

If one was to set out intentionally to stick it to women, minorities, and the poor, this would be the single best way to go about it.

The problem is FAR more complex than "keep your legs closed".
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
822
Location
Palatine, IL.
#5
Pretty sure some dumb man played a major role in the pregnancy.

The canned right-wing response to reproductive health is an engineered recipe for failure:

1. People WON'T stop having sex, just because you say so. So, pregnancies will occur.

2. Republicans are against providing sex education that demonstrably reduces unwanted pregnancy and STDs.

3. Republicans are against providing birth control services for low income families which would further reduce unwanted pregnancies.

4. Republicans want to abolish all abortions, which is a last resort method to eliminate unwanted pregnancies.

5. Republicans are against social programs that would provide for feeding and health care for children born out of unwanted pregnancies.

6. Republicans are against social programs that would help place children born out of unwanted pregnancies into foster and adoptive families.

7. Republicans are not stepping up and adopting these children in anywhere near sufficient numbers.

If one was to set out intentionally to stick it to women, minorities, and the poor, this would be the single best way to go about it.

The problem is FAR more complex than "keep your legs closed".
Yea..I hear ya. But, since men cannot get pregnant, and since the republican party is not responsible for irresponsible behavior, it is on the women to prevent pregnancy. Its not complicated at all.

I will fight every way possible to keep MY TAX dollars from being given to irresponsible women, who for the most part, are from minorities. Personally I don't care if they are white, black, or blue, but the numbers speak for themselves.

I can't wait until Trump selects the next Supreme Court Justice. In fact, I can't wait until his first day of presidency. Happy times are here again.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
421
Location
Corbin, KY
#7
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. That being said, do you let your finances dictate your morals? If times got tough in your household would you kill one of your kids to save some money? I would not have to think too long to believe that you would not.

You also stated that "This is a moral issue and the government has no business in forcing morals." If this is true then the government has no business enacting or enforcing any laws against murder, theft, rape, incest or a whole host of other reprehensible acts.
It's not a all or nothing proposal.

My Republican brother in law feels the same way. His reasoning is if we are allowed to murder an unborn child then we should also be allowed to murder someone who cuts us off on the road. I call hogwash.

It's irresponsible to bring a child into the world that one does not want or one cannot afford. Sex happens and because choices to be without sex or to have sex with one out of a moral choice does not mean all morals are shared. Forcing moral responsibility is wrong because circumstances dictate a moral response and leveraging regulation power to force moral code does nothing but create unwanted children and children that might be raised on the government dime.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
421
Location
Corbin, KY
#8
This is an easy one. If a women has irregular periods and is so broke she cannot afford a baby...then she should have either kept her legs CLOSED or use birth control. The women created the pregnancy, not the Republicans.
Yes, the woman did the act but the Republicans regulated a predicted outcome.

So therefor, the Republicans created a child on programs they don't support. Simple.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
421
Location
Corbin, KY
#9
Yea..I hear ya. But, since men cannot get pregnant, and since the republican party is not responsible for irresponsible behavior, it is on the women to prevent pregnancy. Its not complicated at all.

I will fight every way possible to keep MY TAX dollars from being given to irresponsible women, who for the most part, are from minorities. Personally I don't care if they are white, black, or blue, but the numbers speak for themselves.

I can't wait until Trump selects the next Supreme Court Justice. In fact, I can't wait until his first day of presidency. Happy times are here again.
So, social programs that benefit you are fine right?

I pay local and federal taxes so you can do what I might not approve of on the roads. Taxes pay for fire companies and you might do something stupid I don't agree with and start a fire. Taxes pay for school and I should not be responsible for educating your child. Taxes pay for parks and I may not like who you take to a park.

When does it end? If you believe it is right to dictate the rights of others then I should have the right to dictate your life. Why not?
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,300
Location
Henrico County, VA
#11
This is an easy one. If a women has irregular periods and is so broke she cannot afford a baby...then she should have either kept her legs CLOSED or use birth control. The women created the pregnancy, not the Republicans.

It's quite possible that birth control was used, but was ineffective in a particular case. This happens (although thankfully not that often!).

I'll give another example: a teenager attends a school that does not provide sex education. The mother, a devote Christian, does not discuss birth control or anything remotely related to it, with her daughter.
The daughter falls in love with a classmate and he convinces her that "you can't get pregnant the first time you have sex". So the girl, not knowing any better, believes him and she gets preggers that first time. Now what?

It's easy for us guys to pretend that these issues are cut and dry, because we do not get pregnant and there are those of us that often make very little effort to use condoms (because they diminish the feeling during sex).

Corbin is right when he points out that conservatives that are against abortion under any circumstances also are dead set against providing funds for programs for young mothers that do end up having an unwanted (or unplanned) child.

Like he said: you can't have it both ways. There is nothing easy about solving these issues.
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
1,063
#12
It's not a all or nothing proposal.

My Republican brother in law feels the same way. His reasoning is if we are allowed to murder an unborn child then we should also be allowed to murder someone who cuts us off on the road. I call hogwash.

It's irresponsible to bring a child into the world that one does not want or one cannot afford. Sex happens and because choices to be without sex or to have sex with one out of a moral choice does not mean all morals are shared. Forcing moral responsibility is wrong because circumstances dictate a moral response and leveraging regulation power to force moral code does nothing but create unwanted children and children that might be raised on the government dime.
"It's irresponsible to bring a child into the world that one does not want or one cannot afford. " This is about the only sentence that I can agree with or even made sense to me. You state that sex "just happens". No it doesn't "just happen". Have you had sex with your best friend's wife? Your niece?, Your sister? Your Republican brother in law? Again, I'm going to assume the answer to all of these is a big NO because you drew the line between at what is right and wrong and you have the ability to show self restraint when you want to do so.

I have still have a son in college. (He was "planned" by the way) He recently took an ambulance ride to the emergency room. He also just had root canal, a crown and a good deal of other dental work. My family does not have dental insurance and our medical benefits have really tanked over the last few years. His bills will cost us about $10K. I don't really want to pay the bills as it will pose a financial strain for a while but that doesn't absolve me of the responsibility of doing so and I don't expect others to foot the bill. Following the logic you've used to make your argument, it would seem that ending his life to stop from incurring future hardship, financial or otherwise, would be a justifiable option.

As to your last statement regarding forcing moral responsibility, I refer back to my original response. Society does it all the time. We have enforce a minimum set of standards if we wish to remain civilized or we fall into anarchy. Suggesting that men and women show some personal responsibility for their actions isn't too much to ask.
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
5,908
Location
175 DME, HEC 358° Radial
#13
You state that sex "just happens". No it doesn't "just happen". Have you had sex with your best friend's wife? Your niece?, Your sister? Your Republican brother in law?
There is something inherently wrong about your thought processes that you need to compare heterosexual sex with infidelity, incest, and abuse.

What on earth has gone wrong in your life that makes you think those are valid comparisons?
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
1,063
#14
There is something inherently wrong about your thought processes that you need to compare heterosexual sex with infidelity, incest, and abuse.

What on earth has gone wrong in your life that makes you think those are valid comparisons?
You imply by your question that there is something wrong with infidelity, homosexuality, incest and abuse. Yet there are those in society that not only engage in those activities but believe that it is okay. I was pointing out that everyone sets a standard somewhere. It's just a matter of how low.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
421
Location
Corbin, KY
#16
You imply by your question that there is something wrong with infidelity, homosexuality, incest and abuse. Yet there are those in society that not only engage in those activities but believe that it is okay. I was pointing out that everyone sets a standard somewhere. It's just a matter of how low.
Abortion has been going on for a long time. Abortion does not create these things you imagine, they don't even fit together.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
421
Location
Corbin, KY
#17
There is something inherently wrong about your thought processes that you need to compare heterosexual sex with infidelity, incest, and abuse.

What on earth has gone wrong in your life that makes you think those are valid comparisons?
It's the delusion of religion.

All these things are sins and all these things are equal.

Religion needs abolished. When logic flies out the window and religion dictates a reaction, nobody wins.
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
1,063
#18
I'd bet that infidelity, homosexuality, incest and abuse all predate abortion. Abortion is considered a solution to a problem. You imply that it can't be solved before the problem occurs because self control isn't an option. That isn't correct. Abstinence works. It just isn't as fun.

In your first post you stated that you agreed that abortion is murder. By distilling your subsequent posts down to one thought, I can only conclude that you are trying to suggest that if a person poses a burden on, or is unwanted by, an individual or society, it is acceptable to murder that person.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
421
Location
Corbin, KY
#19
I'd bet that infidelity, homosexuality, incest and abuse all predate abortion. Abortion is considered a solution to a problem. You imply that it can't be solved before the problem occurs because self control isn't an option. That isn't correct. Abstinence works. It just isn't as fun.

In your first post you stated that you agreed that abortion is murder. By distilling your subsequent posts down to one thought, I can only conclude that you are trying to suggest that if a person poses a burden on, or is unwanted by, an individual or society, it is acceptable to murder that person.
I believe it is murder, I do. That's in my eyes and I would never allow my wife to get one (rape aside). Now, that is my feeling and my choice to feel that way. I have no right to force others to feel the way I do. So, I believe in choice, I made mine.

Self control is a choice as well. We are all faced with choices every single day. I have had a lot of sex in my life and I was in control, I just happened to enjoy it. So somehow the choices I made were wrong in your limited view and you would love to force your limited view on others?

Equating what I said about poor mothers to being able to just murder is absurd! I haven't murdered a soul in my life and since we have such a rather large population, I would bet many are like me in this regard.

So why does no harm no foul become the responsibility of the Republicans and religious folks to press on others? I don't drink, should I promote banning alcohol? I smoke, would you tell me I should not be allowed? Motorcycles raise my insurance premiums, should I promote banning them?

My point? We all have little things we can gripe about. But, we have free will and with free will we have the responsibility to be what we can. How each of us works out this responsibility is up to the person. A person who drinks would not like the thought of making it illegal and a person who likes sex would not like you forcing on them moral responsibility.

This is very simple to me, I have NO right to tell you what to do with your life as I don't want you telling me what to do. So it all comes down to the person and I would much rather not create more of a tax burden and that is all this does. Why not force all male babies to have a vasectomy? All things being equal of course.
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
5,908
Location
175 DME, HEC 358° Radial
#20
You imply by your question that there is something wrong with infidelity, homosexuality, incest and abuse. Yet there are those in society that not only engage in those activities but believe that it is okay. I was pointing out that everyone sets a standard somewhere. It's just a matter of how low.
Yes, I did say that there's something wrong with infidelity, incest, and abuse. Are you saying there's not!?

I said nothing either way about homosexuality, it really doesn't have a place in a discussion about abortion. Don't make it one or you risk exposing your real motivations to impose your ancient believe system on others.

My real point, which you seem to have missed, is that comparing built in inhibitions that would prevent normal people from committing incest are not to be compared with will power in an effort to prevent pregnancy.

Right-wing arguments for abortion and women's health matters are patently absurd. You people need to grow up and out of your dogma and catch up with reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top