Ohio Republicans plan to disregard voters.

[SkepticThinker]

I agree personally, but I keep in mind that the world dosent revolve around any single ideal or person.

There are other people who view things differently, and in opposition to what we may see and think on any givin matter which is why I had mentioned in past posts to not to put a lid on any proverbial pressure cooker.

It sounds wrong , but I feel there needs to be places where any person can find an oasis that provides accommodation that suits their perspective and resolution and that includes those who are pro life and anti abortion.

I'm pro choice for my own reasons , but there needs to be places where pro life and anti abortion groups can be accommodated as much as pro choice groups are with some provisions made to protect individuals who are in those places to still be able to make their own decisions without interference.

The thing about pro-choice is that it leaves the choice up to each individual. It's the best possible position that accommodates all points of view, no matter what they may be. it allows each individual to make their own decision based upon their own personal beliefs.

I find it odd that a person's rights and liberties would be different according to which state they're in. Rights are rights and should be applied equally to everyone, everywhere. I don't see how a federal Bill of Rights such as the one the US already has, "leads to more disaster and more suffering than you can imagine." It seems to me, that the opposite is evident, given the repeal of Roe v. Wade and it's consequences that are now playing out across the US.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I agree personally, but I keep in mind that the world dosent revolve around any single ideal or person.

There are other people who view things differently, and in opposition to what we may see and think on any givin matter which is why I had mentioned in past posts to not to put a lid on any proverbial pressure cooker.

It sounds wrong , but I feel there needs to be places where any person can find an oasis that provides accommodation that suits their perspective and resolution and that includes those who are pro life and anti abortion.

I'm pro choice for my own reasons , but there needs to be places where pro life and anti abortion groups can be accommodated as much as pro choice groups are with some provisions made to protect individuals who are in those places to still be able to make their own decisions without interference.

No, as anti-choice groups want to remove a freedom and wedge themselves amd the state between healthcare providers and patient. That is simply unreasonable and shouldn't be accomadated. They get to not have an abortion, just as anti-gays don't have to get married to the same sex.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, as anti-choice groups want to remove a freedom and wedge themselves amd the state between healthcare providers and patient. That is simply unreasonable and shouldn't be accomadated. They get to not have an abortion, just as anti-gays don't have to get married to the same sex.

That's not your decision to make. It's for a state and it's people's to make that determination.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The thing about pro-choice is that it leaves the choice up to each individual. It's the best possible position that accommodates all points of view, no matter what they may be. it allows each individual to make their own decision based upon their own personal beliefs.

I find it odd that a person's rights and liberties would be different according to which state they're in. Rights are rights and should be applied equally to everyone, everywhere. I don't see how a federal Bill of Rights such as the one the US already has, "leads to more disaster and more suffering than you can imagine." It seems to me, that the opposite is evident, given the repeal of Roe v. Wade and it's consequences that are now playing out across the US.

That's why George Carlin said rights are as real as the Easter Bunny and boogeyman because there is toomuch descrepency of what a right is amd especially because they can be taken away, using certain American citizens during WWII who desperately needed their rights but had none save for "right this way to the internment camps."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's not your decision to make. It's for a state and it's people's to make that determination.

Which is improper because states rights more often than not strip liberty than grant it, amd healthcare is NEVER properly up for a democratic vote (it must be guided by science and research).
A woman is entitled toher body and calling it a state's issue means she will not be allowed to live with what is rightfully and properly her decision alone. It's not for the voters to decide she may not get a medical treatment, it is not the voters place to relegate her to a baby factory. But that's what making it a states right issue does.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The thing about pro-choice is that it leaves the choice up to each individual. It's the best possible position that accommodates all points of view, no matter what they may be. it allows each individual to make their own decision based upon their own personal beliefs.

I find it odd that a person's rights and liberties would be different according to which state they're in. Rights are rights and should be applied equally to everyone, everywhere. I don't see how a federal Bill of Rights such as the one the US already has, "leads to more disaster and more suffering than you can imagine." It seems to me, that the opposite is evident, given the repeal of Roe v. Wade and it's consequences that are now playing out across the US.

It's that kind of situation where you try to please all, you please none, alternatively as much as you please one side but you make the other side angrier and angrier raising up the pressure.

I guess there needs to be one final determination as to weither it's a federal matter or a states matter. Maybe it needs to be both.

Pro choice has legal access, and pro life can legally refuse abortion services. That would be my solution if I had any power or say in the matter.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's that kind of situation where you try to please all, you please none, alternatively as much as you please one side but you make the other side angrier and angrier raising up the pressure.

Leaving the choice with the individual pleases all. At least it should, in a country that prides itself on personal rights and freedoms.

Do what you want with your body and I do what I want with my own body. Medical decisions are between me and my doctor and nobody else. And that's that. That's what I call freedom.

I guess there needs to be one final determination as to weither it's a federal matter or a states matter. Maybe it needs to be both.

Maybe Roe v. Wade needs to be put back in place.

Pro choice has legal access, and pro life can legally refuse abortion services. That would be my solution if I had any power or say in the matter.

I find these labels to be kind of bizarre anyway, to be honest with you. I'm pro-choice and pro-life and I don't see why they have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It sounds wrong , but I feel there needs to be places where any person can find an oasis that provides accommodation that suits their perspective and resolution and that includes those who are pro life and anti abortion.

I'm pro choice for my own reasons , but there needs to be places where pro life and anti abortion groups can be accommodated as much as pro choice groups are with some provisions made to protect individuals who are in those places to still be able to make their own decisions without interference.

Nothing in the world threatens a "pro-life" person, living in a statement where abortions are available. There is nothing whatsoever, no way, no how, that will force that person to go and have an abortion. And the fact that someone else in your state has an abortion harms you no more than if they'd had it in another state -- or country, or planet!

What twaddle!

 

[Twilight Hue]

Nothing in the world threatens a "pro-life" person, living in a statement where abortions are available. There is nothing whatsoever, no way, no how, that will force that person to go and have an abortion. And the fact that someone else in your state has an abortion harms you no more than if they'd had it in another state -- or country, or planet!

What twaddle!

These people think and believe they are fighting for the unborn who cannot defend themselves and to some extent its actually a valid position. Especially when it comes to survivers (victims) of failed abortions who themselves are able to put a voice to the matter.

Do you consider the statements of those abortion victims twaddle , or do you just go on and ignore them as if they never existed?

 

[SkepticThinker]

These people think and believe they are fighting for the unborn who cannot defend themselves and to some extent its actually a valid position. Especially when it comes to survivers (victims) of failed abortions who themselves are able to put a voice to the matter.

Do you consider the statements of those abortion victims twaddle , or do you just go on and ignore them as if they never existed?

These people should spend less time thinking about the "unborn" and more time thinking about those already born. But we all know they don't care about you once you're born, unless they think it can score them some political points, as in your examples here. Not a word about the thousands of kids living in poverty. Nothing for them. No school lunches. No welfare for their parents to support them with. No gun reform, despite the fact that firearms are the leading cause of death of children. Hell, some of them don't even want exceptions to save the mother's life meaning a fully grown human being doesn't even get to decide for herself whether she gets to prevent her own death or not. That's not pro-life.

 

[Twilight Hue]

These people should spend less time thinking about the "unborn" and more time thinking about those already born. But we all know they don't care about you once you're born, unless they think it can score them some political points, as in your examples here. Not a word about the thousands of kids living in poverty. Nothing for them. No school lunches. No welfare for their parents to support them with. No gun reform, despite the fact that firearms are the leading cause of death of children. Hell, some of them don't even want exceptions to save the mother's life meaning a fully grown human being doesn't even get to decide for herself whether she gets to prevent her own death or not. That's not pro-life.

Well it's expected some people would regard the third voice ( actual victims) in the abortion debate to be nothing more than 'political points'. To be subsequently and entirely ignored and dismissed.


Even horribly disfigured and scarred, that's all they are, so people should therefore ignore their opinions and statements only because they are nothing at all but deemed 'political points'. Their words then mean absolutely nothing whatsoever to those who think of them as 'political points' and not legitimate as an additional voice. Am I right? Pretty disgusting mentality.

I think sometimes I'm the only one who thinks of the real actual victims here, but I sincerely and desperately hope I'm wrong and others think of them as well , and take their statements as seriously as I do and include them as much as this side and that side are.

There are three sides. Not only two with 'political points' on the side.

Don't forget I'm pro choice for reasons you put forth. I just don't ignore those who have as much say on the matter as anyone else does.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Pro choice has legal access, and pro life can legally refuse abortion services. That would be my solution if I had any power or say in the matter.

Yup. That counts towards you anti-choice positions. You say it here "pro life can legally refuse abortion services. That would be my solution."
Guess what? In the healthcare field providers aren't forced to provide things they aren't trained for. In the healthcare you can **** off if you want to dump your personal stuff on your patients. Society can lop its nose off amd stick it up its bum. It is the choice of the woman who is pregnant, not yours, not mine, not politicians amd not the voters.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well it's expected some people would regard the third voice in the abortion debate to be nothing more than 'political points'. To be subsequently and entirely ignored and dismissed.

When the argument tends to focus on the rare occurrences of "botched abortions" and uses loaded language like "partial birth abortion" and "after-birth abortion" (which isn't even a thing), it demonstrates to me that we're talking about scoring political points, rather than having a serious conversation about reproductive rights.

Even horribly disfigured and scarred, that's all they are so people should therefore ignore their opinions and statements because they are nothing at all but 'political points'. Their words mean absolutely nothing whatsoever to those who think of them as 'political points'. Am I right? Pretty disgusting mentality.

Honestly, I don't think Republicans would give a rat's behind about these people if they couldn't use them as a political tool. Same goes for transgender people who choose to de-transition.

I feel terrible for these people. But I'm not about to decide that bodily autonomy suddenly isn't a right, based on their existence.

I think sometimes I'm the only one who thinks of the real actual victims here, but I sincerely and desperately hope I'm wrong and others think of them as well , and take their statements as seriously as I do and include them as much as this side and that side.

You've completely ignored my point.

Are you also thinking about the victims of rape and incest that will be forced to carry and give birth to a child now? Are you also thinking about the women who actually need an abortion to save their own health, but will be denied such medical attention because they live in a state with ridiculous abortion restrictions and they have to wait until they're basically knocking on death's door before they can receive medical attention? How about the ones who die as a result of that, leaving the children they already have without a mother? How about all the mothers who have been forced to give birth to babies that they have to witness choking to death on their own blood in agony until they die an hour later? Where is the "pro-life" in that? Are these not "real, actual victims?" This is why I say Republicans are pro-fetus, but not actually pro-life. Plus all the examples I gave in my last post.

This is what happens when we put our medical decisions into the hands of idiot politicians who don't even know the first thing about how the human body works.

There are three sides. Not only two with 'political points' on the side.

As I pointed out, I think the "pro-choice" position works for all sides. You don't want an abortion, don't get one. But you can get one if you need it. And you don't get to tell other people what they get to do with their own bodies.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yup. That counts towards you anti-choice positions. You say it here "pro life can legally refuse abortion services. That would be my solution."
Guess what? In the healthcare field providers aren't forced to provide things they aren't trained for. In the healthcare you can **** off if you want to dump your personal stuff on your patients. Society can lop its nose off amd stick it up its bum. It is the choice of the woman who is pregnant, not yours, not mine, not politicians amd not the voters.

Like I said, there are opposite sides and none revolves around the other. You can't just appease just yourself , thinking the world must solely revolve around what one thinks alone, so there is a need to consider there are others who don't share the same views and opinions and have just as much passion and drive as one's self.


Compromise is what works. Not do as I say and damm those who who don't see it my own way.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Like I said, there are opposite sides and none revolves around the other. You can't just appease just yourself , thinking the world must solely revolve around what one thinks alone, so there is a need to consider there are others who don't share the same views and opinions and have just as much passion and drive as one's self.


Compromise is what works. Not do as I say and damm those who who don't see it my own way.

The "pro-choice" position is the best compromise for all, as it allows individuals to each decide for themselves without telling others what they think they should be doing.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The "pro-choice" position is the best compromise for all, as it allows individuals to each decide for themselves without telling others what they think they should be doing.

I agree fully with the exception I don't think people should be forced to acquiesce their personal convictions on any matter. Particularly when it comes to refusal of services.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Like I said, there are opposite sides and none revolves around the other. You can't just appease just yourself , thinking the world must solely revolve around what one thinks alone, so there is a need to consider there are others who don't share the same views and opinions and have just as much passion and drive as one's self.


Compromise is what works. Not do as I say and damm those who who don't see it my own way.

Compromise is pro-choice as everyone who wants an abortion can get one while those who don't aren't compelled to get one.
That is how we maximize liberty. It isn't by throwing people's healthcare and reproductive rights amd choices to the whims of the voting public. That is tyranny by the majority.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I agree fully with the exception I don't think people should be forced to acquiesce their personal convictions on any matter. Particularly when it comes to refusal of services.

Then get into another field as obviously amd clearly you went into the wrong field if you can't perform all necessary job duties you were hired to perform.
Especially in healthcare. Bugger off amd get lost. If you want to unload your personal stuff on patients you are in the wrong field and need to be responsible amd find a job that won't compromise your personal morality while causing undue and unfair hardships on patients.

 

[Revoltingest]

Everything seemed to work out pretty well when Roe v. Wade was the law of the land.
Now, not so much.

There's also that pesky Bill of Rights ..

I don't think one's right to bodily autonomy should or should not exist based up on which particular state one is in but that's just me.

When the Constitution is silent on a right, or even
in denial of it, the independence of the states to
grant it is useful.
The problem I see with striking down was that it was
settled law. The current SCOTUS Catholic majority
appears to take the novel view that if a right isn't
explicit (ie, enumerated), it's not a right. Thomas
even questions gay marriage. But he should beware
losing the right to inter-racial marriage.
Also troubling is the apparent behind the scenes
Trump's selecting anti-abortion candidates who'd
cluck approval of stare decisis & settled law during
confirmation, & then vote otherwise re Roe v Wade.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I agree fully with the exception I don't think people should be forced to acquiesce their personal convictions on any matter. Particularly when it comes to refusal of services.

Think of it this way. I've worked with several people I've ad very deep disagreements with. But it wasn't about me so I could continue keeping my mouth shut over it and focus on the patient and stick to their issues without inserting mine. The voicing concern and objections were for those like a diabetic patient who drank too much for anyone, let alone someone with that condition.