Vote "no" issue 1 if...

 
5% at least.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women - PubMed

Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Understanding Pregnancy Resulting from Rape in the United States |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC

Understanding Pregnancy Resulting from Rape in the United States
www.cdc.gov www.cdc.gov

so 1% is insignificant?

Abortions at or after 21 weeks are uncommon, and represent 1% of all abortions in the US
 
ProV1 said:
And even when they do red it, they will just lie about it. Culture.
Click to expand...
It's actually a no-brainer yes! Very good compromise. Oh yeah... Oops. They do not believe in compromise. Even when they get what they insist they want. Like you said, Culture.
 
ProV1 said:
And even when they do red it, they will just lie about it. Culture.
Click to expand...

They don’t read it. They are driven by religion - some Catholics, most Evangelicals. This is strictly the church intruding in peoples private lives demanding their beliefs be substituted for yours based on their religious beliefs. Another culture war screwing up people and the country.
 
Paladin said:
They don’t read it. They are driven by religion - some Catholics, most Evangelicals. This is strictly the church intruding in peoples private lives demanding their beliefs be substituted for yours based on their religious beliefs. Another culture war screwing up people and the country.
Click to expand...

So only religious people care about the sanctity of life?

You people have some incredibly stupid beliefs.
 
Guillotine said:
So only religious people care about the sanctity of life?

You people have some incredibly stupid beliefs.
Click to expand...
What is a woman ? It takes a biologist to define one.

There are more than two genders

A baby in the womb 10 weeks isn’t really a baby unless you go to pay an obstetrician. If you go to pay an abortionist, it’s a blob of cells, just an amorphous growth of indeterminate nature.

A girl can become a boy because she believes she is one, and if you don’t give her everything she wants medically to play gender bender games, you are murdering her.

Trump was the most corrupt President in US history

Those are my top five absurd Democrat beliefs. What have you got ?
 
cabezadecaballo said:
What is a woman ? It takes a biologist to define one.

There are more than two genders

A baby in the womb 10 weeks isn’t really a baby unless you go to pay an obstetrician. If you go to pay an abortionist, it’s a blob of cells, just an amorphous growth of indeterminate nature.

A girl can become a boy because she believes she is one, and if you don’t give her everything she wants medically to play gender bender games, you are murdering her.

Trump was the most corrupt President in US history

Those are my top five absurd Democrat beliefs. What have you got ?
Click to expand...

Climate change is the sole existential threat to humanity?

The religious bigots sure worship some interesting "science." lol
 
cabezadecaballo said:
What is a woman ? It takes a biologist to define one.

There are more than two genders

A baby in the womb 10 weeks isn’t really a baby unless you go to pay an obstetrician. If you go to pay an abortionist, it’s a blob of cells, just an amorphous growth of indeterminate nature.

A girl can become a boy because she believes she is one, and if you don’t give her everything she wants medically to play gender bender games, you are murdering her.

Trump was the most corrupt President in US history

Those are my top five absurd Democrat beliefs. What have you got ?
Click to expand...
Look no further than the thousands of pro-terrorist supporters in the United States, and one of their biggest allies in the anti-family and anti-semitic blm cult
 
psycho_dad said:
It is clear that you do not know what issue #1 is. You have not read it. Why don't you post it here and list your objections to it point by point?!
Click to expand...
One can read it, be crystal clear on what it is, and still not support it. But since you asked...it's an amendment, as a diligent voter I am much less likely to support a change to the constitution in general but if I do it needs to be very buttoned up and this one is incredibly vague.

"Every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one’s own pregnancy, miscarriage care, and abortion." That phrase should never appear anywhere in legislation because it essentially means "limitless." If this were a tax levy, no one would vote yes if it said "you will pay an amount equivalent of, but not limited to, 1% of your..." In this case, reproductive decisions are not limited to post conception (nor to girls, for that matter).

"Every individual..." is not age specific, meaning a minor can get an abortion without the parents ever being informed. Your school nurse can't give your minor Tylenol without your consent, and your minor can't buy Tylenol decongestant at Kroger. And If that minor hemorrhages or has other complications needing medical attention, the uninformed parent then seeks treatment for them and that doctor doesn't have pertinent information which may effect the outcome.

"However, abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability." Sure it may, or it just as likely may not, because "may" is not "will" so there are zero assurances that the current law limiting abortions to the first half of the pregnancy, which this amendment supersedes, will be upheld.

But even if you want to assume "may" does mean "will" then it goes on to state that "Fetal viability means the point in a pregnancy when, in the professional judgement of a pregnant patient's treating physician...." the abortionist is the treating physician whose 'judgement' can simply be at any time in the pregnancy that the fetus is not viable without 'reasonable measures' which also remains their 'judgement' call. There is no oversight to their 'judgement' meaning they don't have to justify or uphold it in a court of law or to the Ohio Medical Board.

Because finally "The State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against a person or entity that assists with an individual exercising this right..." and "State includes any governmental entity" makes any legal recourse by law enforcement no matter what the circumstance next to impossible.

The loopholes that remain permanently and legally open due to the vagueness of the language throughout the entirety of Issue 1 are much too extreme for a constitutional amendment, I'll be voting NO.
 
IMG_4197.jpeg
 
taximama24 said:
One can read it, be crystal clear on what it is, and still not support it. But since you asked...it's an amendment, as a diligent voter I am much less likely to support a change to the constitution in general but if I do it needs to be very buttoned up and this one is incredibly vague.

"Every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one’s own pregnancy, miscarriage care, and abortion." That phrase should never appear anywhere in legislation because it essentially means "limitless." If this were a tax levy, no one would vote yes if it said "you will pay an amount equivalent of, but not limited to, 1% of your..." In this case, reproductive decisions are not limited to post conception (nor to girls, for that matter).
Click to expand...
Limitless only means with regards to reproductive decisions. This is not a tax levy with unlimited results. Can you think of something not mentioned in the text but might be considered a reproductive decision? If not, I would not worry about it.
taximama24 said:
"Every individual..." is not age specific, meaning a minor can get an abortion without the parents ever being informed. Your school nurse can't give your minor Tylenol without your consent, and your minor can't buy Tylenol decongestant at Kroger. And If that minor hemorrhages or has other complications needing medical attention, the uninformed parent then seeks treatment for them and that doctor doesn't have pertinent information which may effect the outcome.
Click to expand...
The parental consent law does not change with the passage of this amendment. It still applies and it would have to be challenged at the Ohio Supreme Court for a minor to get an abortion with parental consent.
taximama24 said:
"However, abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability." Sure it may, or it just as likely may not, because "may" is not "will" so there are zero assurances that the current law limiting abortions to the first half of the pregnancy, which this amendment supersedes, will be upheld.

But even if you want to assume "may" does mean "will" then it goes on to state that "Fetal viability means the point in a pregnancy when, in the professional judgement of a pregnant patient's treating physician...." the abortionist is the treating physician whose 'judgement' can simply be at any time in the pregnancy that the fetus is not viable without 'reasonable measures' which also remains their 'judgement' call. There is no oversight to their 'judgement' meaning they don't have to justify or uphold it in a court of law or to the Ohio Medical Board.
Click to expand...
This is true. The current law has restrictions. This is no different than the constitutional right to free speech. Laws can be passed to impose restrictions. All decisions on medical procedures are judgments. We don’t have boards or courts in Ohio that decide if a doctors medical opinion is right or wrong for medical decisions. I can’t imagine that would be a good thing.
taximama24 said:
Because finally "The State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against a person or entity that assists with an individual exercising this right..." and "State includes any governmental entity" makes any legal recourse by law enforcement no matter what the circumstance next to impossible.

The loopholes that remain permanently and legally open due to the vagueness of the language throughout the entirety of Issue 1 are much too extreme for a constitutional amendment, I'll be voting NO.
Click to expand...
I give you credit for reading this, though. You have gone exponentially further than most Yappis.
 
bigkat said:
so you don't believe that it would give the mother/doctor the right to murder the baby up to the moment before birth?


by the way, how along in the pregenancy do you feel it is OK to take the life of the baby?
Click to expand...
Up until the moment it will kill the mother. I've been there. Great doctors saved both. I'm not a fan of abortion, but it is necessary and it is as personal a decision as anyone can make and it's no one else's business. Thank goodness I did not have to make the decision, but it would have been my decision and mine alone. My wife was unable to make it with me. Thank goodness for great doctors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top