New Ohio Bill could criminalize miscarriages and death penalty for women who seek abortion

This_person

Well-Known Member
Nothing says Pro life like threatening the death penalty to women who seek abortions..


https://hillreporter.com/a-pro-life...-in-ohio-could-criminalize-miscarriages-14823

Just so you know, your headline says "could", which is not even technically accurate let alone conceivable.

Sounds like a bad bill, as the report suggests rape and medical concerns against the life of the mother are not specifically protected cases. We would agree in opposing this bill - me for good reasons, you for outlandish ones.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
Just so you know, your headline says "could", which is not even technically accurate let alone conceivable.

Sounds like a bad bill, as the report suggests rape and medical concerns against the life of the mother are not specifically protected cases. We would agree in opposing this bill - me for good reasons, you for outlandish ones.


"In its current form, the Ohio bill could open the door for mothers who abort their pregnancies to face murder charges in the state. In Ohio, the punishment for murder includes life imprisonment or the death penalty."


Seems like the very definition of the word "could" but hey you are a hypocrite and happy to lie to to make yourself seems smart so no one here is surprised.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
"In its current form, the Ohio bill could open the door for mothers who abort their pregnancies to face murder charges in the state. In Ohio, the punishment for murder includes life imprisonment or the death penalty."


Seems like the very definition of the word "could" but hey you are a hypocrite and happy to lie to to make yourself seems smart so no one here is surprised.

"could criminalize miscarriages" is what your title says. It does not, could not do that.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
"could criminalize miscarriages" is what your title says. It does not, could not do that.

Please save everyone time and frustration by simply reading article before you respond in the future

"The HB 565 bill also expands the definition of abortion to include “any method, including, but not limited to, chemical methods, medical methods, and surgical methods”, prompting concerns over whether an unintended pregnancy termination or miscarriage could fall under this umbrella definition"
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Please save everyone time and frustration by simply reading article before you respond in the future

"The HB 565 bill also expands the definition of abortion to include “any method, including, but not limited to, chemical methods, medical methods, and surgical methods”, prompting concerns over whether an unintended pregnancy termination or miscarriage could fall under this umbrella definition"

That they find those serious concerns are worse than laughable. The source they quote is the WOSU website reporting on the bill. So, their source is another report on the bill, not the bill itself.

So, what does WOSU say?

Jaime Miracle with NARAL Pro Choice Ohio says#the bill#"...could criminalize women who have miscarriages that might seem suspicious to somebody or could criminalize in-vitro fertilization procedures that might end up with an embryo".​

Their source of this "could" is a pro-abortion spokesman who thinks it "could" if it "might seem" like it. Hard, hard reporting there :lol:

If you look at page 116 of the actual bill (which will never, ever pass), it says,
"Abortion" means the purposeful termination of a human pregnancy by any person, including the pregnant woman, with the intention of causing the death of an unborn human, by any method, including, but not limited to, chemical methods, medical methods, and surgical methods.​

A miscarriage is not intentional and/or purposeful, thus the "could criminalize miscarriages" is what this bill does NOT do. It is a blatant lie made to make you feel scared, and it worked.
 

CPUSA

Well-Known Member
Just so you know, your headline says "could", which is not even technically accurate let alone conceivable.

Sounds like a bad bill, as the report suggests rape and medical concerns against the life of the mother are not specifically protected cases. We would agree in opposing this bill - me for good reasons, you for outlandish ones.

Why are you even wasting your time responding to Sadpussi? It's a bigger idiot than Tranny.
My guess is because it's the result of a FAILED back alley abortion.
See what doing something half assed gets you in the end?
 

Salmon

Well-Known Member
Kavanaugh and company could make this reality in many states. #keepabortionlegal #abortionrightsarehumanrights
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
Nothing says Pro life like threatening the death penalty to women who seek abortions..


https://hillreporter.com/a-pro-life...-in-ohio-could-criminalize-miscarriages-14823

Okay, so here we go with another misdirect of the kind that I wrote about last week (re: some of Tranny's posts).

The idea here is to contrast first, "life" & "death" and second, "death penalty" & "women." The "life & death" pair is used to reinforce the persuasion that any one who supports this bill is an utter hypocrite. The "women & death penalty" pair is used to reinforce "The Handmaid's Tale" meme. Both very effective (but, of course, more so with the Left's base).

As we've learned about the Left's messaging, it's generally "good" in the sense that it comes in the form of memorable soundbites. The Left reduces complex issues down to a nugget that is easily absorbed, remembered, and on the surface, seemingly common-sensical.

But public policy is generally not so simple and the Right's messaging generally reflects that. So the Right's messaging gets lost in the complexity of it all. That means the Right often loses because we naturally gravitate to the message that makes us feel better; even if the only reason we feel better is because the message doesn't cause our brains to hurt trying to process it. It's why advertisers spend so much time. effort, & money trying to come up with the catchy jingle, slogan, meme, etc.

But let's get back to the issue. To my mind, the Right's better messaging would focus on drive-by shootings. If an innocent victim is gunned down in a drive-by do we blame that victim? Or do we point our finger at the perp? Pro-Life folks need to attack the idea of abortion advocates getting a monopoly on the word "choice." Just as the drive-by victim had no choice in the matter, neither does the baby/fetus. But the drive-by perp does, just like the person seeking the abortion. The Right's position is that adults should act with responsibility toward the less empowered and show that it's the Left who are the hypocrites. After all, isn't that what's at the heart of the Social Justice movement? Further, wouldn't limiting/abolishing abortion be consistent with the logic the Left uses for gun control?

(And, oh, btw, even though the death penalty angle being "Chicken Littled" here is hyperbole let's do a quick review why many of those who are Pro-Life are/can be also Pro-Capital Punishment: Personal Agency. Sapi, Tranny..., thoughts?)

Very importantly, no way do we let Sapidus (or the writer of the article) get away with terming the bill anti-miscarriage. This is pure double-speak that seeks to misuse of a medical sense with the public discourse sense. "Miscarriage" here is a cynical euphemism for abortion. But "miscarriage" is used because it evokes sympathy (especially these days when women seem to find it necessary to announce their miscarriages all over social media; no attempt here to suggest why). It's also another appeal to the "Handmaid's Tale" angle. This association is quite powerful and as such it resonates, remains in your head, and generates sympathy. Exactly what Sapi wants. Note that we are manipulated away from the issue (abortion) toward sympathy for oppressed women. Powerful appeal to the emotions. Logical fallacy, but a powerfully effective debating technique.

So very effective messaging. Don't fall for it (regardless of whether you are pro-abortion or pro-life: you fall for it and you make yourself easier prey down the road for these cheap persuasion tricks).

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Last edited:

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
They are hostile to women’s rights.

How so? And what would they be able to "do" if that were even true.

Funny..the majority of staff Kavanaugh has employed over the years have been, and still are, women. What an evil bastid.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
The sooner the govment gets out of an individuals choice the better off we will all be.

Another example of the "simple slogan." If we were to logically extend somdwatch's position that would mean...?

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
They are hostile to women’s rights.

I see what you're trying to do here. But it doesn't work. Only plays to the a very small percentage of the base. Bad persuasion. Great call to the barricades, though. Antifa, anyone?

--- End of line (MCP)
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
There is an on-going assault on abortion access coming from the right.



One State does not make an all out assault ...

I'm sure you will still be able to murder your unborn child in California, Maryland, NY, and other progressive states
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
There is an on-going assault on abortion access coming from the right.

Sad that the same can't be said for the Left.

Let's rephrase this to, "There is an on-going effort by the Left to continue the highly-controversial legal protections that allow moms to murder their babies." Why are you so proud and supportive of such a barbaric practice?

As to persuasion, again, not too great. I see you've tried to work "assault" into your bit, but the word has been/is used so much by the Left these days in so many ways (assault rifles, assault on women's rights, #MeToo is a response to assault, etc., ad nauseum) that it just doesn't resonate with anyone but The Base.

Because, "assault _____." Because, "racism." Because, "privilege." Hope you realize you're not making any inroads. Why? Because, "semantic satiation."

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Last edited:
Top