Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: Ohio bill and ectopic pregnancies?

  1. #11
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    166
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Did you read my response?
    Yes, I read your answer. And I also skimmed through the bill.

    Few actually read the bills, most seem to take a summary from whatever source they are reading.

    My point is that few on the pro life side have really thought through to an ethical position, other than "abortion is wrong". The example of abortion applied to ectopic pregnancies I the case in point. I suspect that it was placed in there without thought, and maybe by an abortion hard liner.

    If abortion is wrong in every case, then it is also wrong for the case of the ectopic pregnancy. And the Ohio bill should stand as written. After reading the answers here, I suspect quite a few pro life Christians disagree with the bill as written.

  2. #12
    tWebber Christianbookworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northern Hemisphere
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    9,466
    Amen (Given)
    5617
    Amen (Received)
    1819
    If there is no way to save both, the baby should be delivered prematurely. If they can't be saved in the NICU, provide comfort care until the end.
    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

  3. #13
    Professor KingsGambit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Triangle
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,703
    Amen (Given)
    1776
    Amen (Received)
    4699
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Did you read my response?
    I think this is a separate bill altogether, which was proposed in the last month as opposed to the OP from several months ago. This one details a specific procedure that is actually medically impossible (according to my wife, who read the bill and has a relevant background in that area that I lack).
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

  4. #14
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    15,600
    Amen (Given)
    10064
    Amen (Received)
    5779
    Quote Originally Posted by KingsGambit View Post
    A similar bill has been proposed in the same state: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...box=1575018221

    I grant that the article itself is very biased against the pro-life movement, but I was linked to this article by a pro-life organization I follow that was horrified that this bill was ever proposed.

    Frankly, I don't blame outsiders from asking "what's the real goal?" when they see such things.
    Bill?

  5. #15
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    166
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    Bill?
    Hb 413. It is in committee. https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/leg...d=GA133-HB-413

    The bill is 723 pp. The main part is section 2904, lines 5300 to 5380. It creates a new crime, 'aggravated abortion murder". I am not a lawyer, but I wonder if it places the woman as a perpetrator of a violent crime, not a victim of abortion. My read is that it does.

    I don't know how it would affect ministries to women who have had abortion. It reminds me of the good old days, when protests at clinics had protesters screaming murderer. It was not effective then, and took some time and effort to change hearts and minds in the pro life camp.
    Last edited by simplicio; 12-03-2019 at 12:45 AM.

  6. #16
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    166
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    35
    Several bills have been introduced on abortion in Ohio. The "fetal heartbeat bill" dealt with insurance, but had some key provisions taken out at the last minute. So another bill was introduced.

    The legislator, Becker, claims there are two cases in which an ectopic pregnancy was successful in saving the baby by reimplanting the baby in the appropriate organ.

    Does life begin at conception, or at the time of pregnancy, defined as the successful implantation in the uterus? The answers are not neat and tidy.

  7. #17
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    15,600
    Amen (Given)
    10064
    Amen (Received)
    5779
    Quote Originally Posted by simplicio View Post
    Hb 413. It is in committee. https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/leg...d=GA133-HB-413

    The bill is 723 pp. The main part is section 2904, lines 5300 to 5380. It creates a new crime, 'aggravated abortion murder". I am not a lawyer, but I wonder if it places the woman as a perpetrator of a violent crime, not a victim of abortion. My read is that it does.

    I don't know how it would affect ministries to women who have had abortion. It reminds me of the good old days, when protests at clinics had protesters screaming murderer. It was not effective then, and took some time and effort to change hearts and minds in the pro life camp.


    Thank you for the PDF and the locating information.

    1) Yes, unless under duress.
    2) Not at all at present - laws aren't retroactive. I don't find 'allowing women to kill their babies so we can provide counselling later' a compelling argument so this is rather moot to me.

    I will now be ranting in general.



    No, the bill DOES NOT require reimplantation of an ectopic pregnancy (at least not now). What part of 'if applicable' confuses you people? Or 'affirmative defense'?

    It's just providing that IF a means exists to save the non-viable embryo/fetus then the attempt must be made (the previous sections negate this if it would pose a fatal threat to the mother). If no such means exist, then the section is inapplicable - as stated in the freaking statute!!!!! Y'all are going off because it gave a potential example as if it were a requirement now!

    This is why we read the actual statute and not The Guardian's hit pieces.

  8. #18
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    166
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post


    Thank you for the PDF and the locating information.

    1) Yes, unless under duress.
    2) Not at all at present - laws aren't retroactive. I don't find 'allowing women to kill their babies so we can provide counselling later' a compelling argument so this is rather moot to me.

    I will now be ranting in general.



    No, the bill DOES NOT require reimplantation of an ectopic pregnancy (at least not now). What part of 'if applicable' confuses you people? Or 'affirmative defense'?

    It's just providing that IF a means exists to save the non-viable embryo/fetus then the attempt must be made (the previous sections negate this if it would pose a fatal threat to the mother). If no such means exist, then the section is inapplicable - as stated in the freaking statute!!!!! Y'all are going off because it gave a potential example as if it were a requirement now!

    This is why we read the actual statute and not The Guardian's hit pieces.
    Yet the law specifically cited a nonexistent medical procedure, transplanting a fetus into the proper reproductive organ after ripping apart another organ.

    The principle of double effect is a general principle used for ethical decisions; the bill tries to codify philosophic justification into law. The bill is hitting the news, and with good reason.

    Do you think that creating a legal novum, abortion murder, will result in any less abortions being performed?

  9. #19
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    15,600
    Amen (Given)
    10064
    Amen (Received)
    5779
    Quote Originally Posted by simplicio View Post
    Yet the law specifically cited a nonexistent medical procedure, transplanting a fetus into the proper reproductive organ after ripping apart another organ.
    Er, weren't you the one that pointed out Becker might have grounds for the idea? And they don't 'rip apart' the Fallopian tube -that's utter nonsense.

    Thirty years ago few babies under 24 weeks survived at all - now it happens all the time. Who's to say what they might be able to do in the future?

    Honestly, inverting the tube into the uterus might someday be an option - who knows? Why shouldn't the law anticipate advances in medical science?

    The principle of double effect is a general principle used for ethical decisions; the bill tries to codify philosophic justification into law. The bill is hitting the news, and with good reason.
    Yeah, click bait.
    Do you think that creating a legal novum, abortion murder, will result in any less abortions being performed?
    What's new about it? Laws against abortion predate and have a longer history than Roe. And yes, doctors aren't big on life sentences - cuts down the murder rate in every other area, kinda silly to assume it won't for baby murder.

    Are you even pro-life?

  10. #20
    Professor KingsGambit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Triangle
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,703
    Amen (Given)
    1776
    Amen (Received)
    4699
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    This is why we read the actual statute and not The Guardian's hit pieces.
    The pro-life organization I most closely follow maintains that the bill does do exactly what the Guardian claims. I trust their expertise. It's not hard to imagine the actual genesis of the bill; one pro-life author asserted that ectopic pregnancies should not be removed in the Federalist several months ago (then retracted her claim after doctors informed her she was out to lunch): https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/19...-mothers-life/
    Last edited by KingsGambit; 12-03-2019 at 10:27 PM.
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •