Vote "no" issue 1 if...

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...
The number of abortions after the baby is viable (around 21 weeks) is about 1% (actually 0.6%) of all abortions … less than the number of rape and incest which has been said to be insignificant on here several times … so doesn’t this make your point insignificant also?
 
psycho_dad said:
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.
Click to expand...
"sorry mam...gonna have to kill your baby before we take it out".
 
joesports said:
The number of abortions after the baby is viable (around 21 weeks) is about 1% (actually 0.6%) of all abortions … less than the number of rape and incest which has been said to be insignificant on here several times … so doesn’t this make your point insignificant also?
Click to expand...
They do not deal in facts. I've pointed that out to them about 10 times. 21 weeks is only with medical intervention. Instead of making better contraception available to prevent pregnancies, they want to take that away too and do less sex education. All the things that prevent abortions are no goes with them. Abortion, as a matter of medical necessity must be legal. Trying to outlaw it completely is just idiocy.
 
ProV1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually in a constitutional amendment it means exactly what the language says, and if it can be interpreted to fit within that language then it legally applies. That is why a constitutional amendment with vague language can be incredibly dangerous.

The tax example was meant to highlight how ludicrous it would be to approve legislation with any reference to limitless/not limited to, and if it you wouldn't do it with your taxes, why would you do it with a constitutional amendment?

But yes, I actually can think of something not mentioned in the text but considered a reproductive decision. A teenage boy who doesn't want to wear condoms and thinks he doesn't want to have kids in the future anyway, without a mature enough thought process to think he might change his mind 20-30yrs later, could pursue a vasectomy and could not be denied one due to the constitutional rights of this amendment.
 
1698073017070.png
 
ProV1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
A constitutional amendment supersedes a bill from the general assembly, which is where the parental consent passed.
 
joesports said:
The number of abortions after the baby is viable (around 21 weeks) is about 1% (actually 0.6%) of all abortions … less than the number of rape and incest which has been said to be insignificant on here several times … so doesn’t this make your point insignificant also?
Click to expand...
The amount of miscarriages or stillborn births are less than 1% after week 13. Aborting after 13 weeks is is stopping a viable life regardless.
 
ProV1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
So it wasn't okay that I used a tax levy as an outside example but now you are using free speech? Laws "can" be passed to impose restrictions is the same as abortions "may" be prohibited past fetal viability. There is a risk in passing a constitutional amendment with the most broad and all encompassing language possible and then relying on the assumption that it will be narrowed down later to parameters with which you would prefer. As a diligent voter I'm not okay passing constitutional amendments on a whim.

And yes in Ohio a doctor can be reviewed by the Ohio Medical Board.
 
taximama24 said:
Actually in a constitutional amendment it means exactly what the language says, and if it can be interpreted to fit within that language then it legally applies. That is why a constitutional amendment with vague language can be incredibly dangerous.

The tax example was meant to highlight how ludicrous it would be to approve legislation with any reference to limitless/not limited to, and if it you wouldn't do it with your taxes, why would you do it with a constitutional amendment?

But yes, I actually can think of something not mentioned in the text but considered a reproductive decision. A teenage boy who doesn't want to wear condoms and thinks he doesn't want to have kids in the future anyway, without a mature enough thought process to think he might change his mind 20-30yrs later, could pursue a vasectomy and could not be denied one due to the constitutional rights of this amendment.
Click to expand...
No he can't. There are consent laws in Ohio that prohibit that. You are forgetting a very important part of this. This amendment is about rights. I used the 1st amendment, but you could also use the 2nd as an example. There are restrictions put on amendments via laws. Legal restrictions are seldom part of the text granted by a constitution. This amendment does not need to be special.
 
taximama24 said:
A constitutional amendment supersedes a bill from the general assembly, which is where the parental consent passed.
Click to expand...
That is a total lie. The parental consent law still applies and will continue to apply unless it is appealed or challenged in a court as unconstitutional.
 
taximama24 said:
So it wasn't okay that I used a tax levy as an outside example but now you are using free speech? Laws "can" be passed to impose restrictions is the same as abortions "may" be prohibited past fetal viability. There is a risk in passing a constitutional amendment with the most broad and all encompassing language possible and then relying on the assumption that it will be narrowed down later to parameters with which you would prefer. As a diligent voter I'm not okay passing constitutional amendments on a whim.
Click to expand...
I am using other amendments that grant people rights like this one does. Passing this amendment does not mean there cannot be restrictions.
taximama24 said:
And yes in Ohio a doctor can be reviewed by the Ohio Medical Board.
Click to expand...
Sure. But every decision is not reviewed. That would be a disaster.
 
winbypin said:
The amount of miscarriages or stillborn births are less than 1% after week 13. Aborting after 13 weeks is is stopping a viable life regardless.
Click to expand...

When during pregnancy do most abortions occur?​

The vast majority of abortions occur during the first trimester of a pregnancy. In 2020, 93% of abortions occurred during the first trimester – that is, at or before 13 weeks of gestation, according to the CDC. An additional 6% occurred between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation

I’m all for restrictions on most abortions … somewhere around 15 weeks is what I previously said ... with a few exceptions, like mother’s health
 
Tesoro said:
"sorry mam...gonna have to kill your baby before we take it out".
Click to expand...
Sorry sir, Your wife that you have known since you were in 7th grade and your baby are gone. Couldn't save one without sacrificing the other, so the only solution was to let them both die. Go home and have a good day. There is some paperwork you need to fill out at the front desk.
 
psycho_dad said:
Sorry sir, Your wife that you have known since you were in 7th grade and your baby are gone. Couldn't save one without sacrificing the other, so the only solution was to let them both die. Go home and have a good day. There is some paperwork you need to fill out at the front desk.
Click to expand...
Such drama.

"sorry your wife had to die at the hands of a suicidal maniac, but we just couldn't let her defend herself here in this school"
 
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).

"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.
Click to expand...


EXACTLY. Hard coding radical leftist ideology into our constitution WILL have disastrous consequences for Ohio. This is worse than California.
 
joesports said:

When during pregnancy do most abortions occur?​

The vast majority of abortions occur during the first trimester of a pregnancy. In 2020, 93% of abortions occurred during the first trimester – that is, at or before 13 weeks of gestation, according to the CDC. An additional 6% occurred between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation

I’m all for restrictions on most abortions … somewhere around 15 weeks is what I previously said ... with a few exceptions, like mother’s health
Click to expand...

Orin Swift said:
Agreed, first post is a drama queen post.
Click to expand...
Yep. Nothing wrong with killing a baby. Carry on.

Maybe you should sign up on Hamas's team.
 
Tesoro said:
Yep. Nothing wrong with killing a baby. Carry on.

Maybe you should sign up on Hamas's team.
Click to expand...
LOL no just wait until the babies are born then cut their heads off in the name of Allah.
Seriously. Abortion is this country is really no different then what hamas did to Jewish babies.
Hanas does it in the name of Allah.. Women do it in the name of their god.. The feminist imperative.
 
OhioBobcatFan06 said:
Vote yes on issue one to stop overpopulation
Click to expand...
I always thought that you were a devout Muskipalian?!? Elon says decline in birth rates is doom.

Maybe making and keeping it a states right issue is the best idea ?

You will exterminate alot of the blue state babies, but in red states the adoptive parents are likely to be more conservative. Seems like a good idea at this point……
 
psycho_dad said:
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
Click to expand...

True

psycho_dad said:
and it's no one else's business.
Click to expand...
False. A fetus is a defenseless human life, whether you care to admit it or not.
psycho_dad said:
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.
Click to expand...
indeed
 
Last edited:
joesports said:

When during pregnancy do most abortions occur?​

The vast majority of abortions occur during the first trimester of a pregnancy. In 2020, 93% of abortions occurred during the first trimester – that is, at or before 13 weeks of gestation, according to the CDC. An additional 6% occurred between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation

I’m all for restrictions on most abortions … somewhere around 15 weeks is what I previously said ... with a few exceptions, like mother’s health
Click to expand...
You won't get an argument out of me for exceptions around mothers health, incest, and rape....and it seems we are in agreement that these reasons are rare and that most abortions are after the fact contraception. That, I am against.
 
winbypin said:
You won't get an argument out of me for exceptions around mothers health, incest, and rape....and it seems we are in agreement that these reasons are rare and that most abortions are after the fact contraception. That, I am against.
Click to expand...
Yup..women and men show just can't act responsibly.
 
winbypin said:
You won't get an argument out of me for exceptions around mothers health, incest, and rape....and it seems we are in agreement that these reasons are rare and that most abortions are after the fact contraception. That, I am against.
Click to expand...
So the morning after pill is a big no go for you?
 
joesports said:
The number of abortions after the baby is viable (around 21 weeks) is about 1% (actually 0.6%) of all abortions … less than the number of rape and incest which has been said to be insignificant on here several times … so doesn’t this make your point insignificant also?
Click to expand...
it gives the woman and doctor the ability to take the child at the moment before birth doesn't it?


does the parent have rights to KNOW if their 14 year old is about to get a abortion or have things done to make her/him a dude or a dudette?
 
winbypin said:
You won't get an argument out of me for exceptions around mothers health, incest, and rape....and it seems we are in agreement that these reasons are rare and that most abortions are after the fact contraception. That, I am against.
Click to expand...
what about a womens MENTAL health? or because at the last moment she and the doctor figures she can't afford to keep the child?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top