John Kasich on abortion

[KSB2424 3,083]

Moreover, read my original post. You don't have to overturn Ro In order to severely limit abortion services to women. Look at Ohio Again my original post. Or look at Texas.

 

Well lets talk about defunding Planned Parenthood then. I'm gald you asked. Something pretty much all of Pro Life Republicans want to do. Not just Kasich. Shocker, I know.

 

The websites you are reading is one side of the story. It's slanted. It's coming from a pro-choice point of view. Let's look at it from a business point of view something both you and I are more familiar with.

 

Take the word abortion out as it only muddies the waters. Lets substitute abortion out for "providing a service". When the gov't helps fund, or subsidize funding a service it props it up. It often time creates a bubble. It's changes the normal course of the supply-demand-price model.

 

Stopping that funding would force this marketplace to reset. To reset to a point where only the service providers that are truly needed survive. If there was a service provider every 5 square miles before but now 40% went under then there is a service provider every 9 square miles because thats all that was really needed based on the demand. The half of them left in Ohio are the one's that are left because they are only what is really needed.

 

Now lets put abortion back into it. Defunding PP or other clinics does not mean putting them out of business per se. It means the ones who survive on the their own accord by accepting insurance and medicaid (which everyone has under Obamacare), being TAX EXEMPT and also accepting donations from donors.

 

Any woman, any woman, that wants an abortion can get one in Ohio. She just might have to drive a couple extra miles now since there isn't one on every block. Cry me a river.

[edjr 5,567]

Anyone who is against rape abortions is a POS, hands down

 

complete loons

[TimmySmith 2,782]

 

Instead of focusing on the areas that we can all agree on in the 60%, people just align themselves with one of the nut groups on the end of the spectrum that is closest to them.

Because pro-lifers believe that if you give an inch they'll take a mile, and pro-choicers believe if they take an inch, they'll take a mile. There really is no middle ground.

 

My question to pro-choicers is do they really believe the Supreme Court will ever reverse Roe V. Wade? I mean we just had a very conservative court and they didn't, and yet there people are scared to death of it. I think there is greater fear mongering on the left than the right on this one.

[KSB2424 3,083]

 

complete loons

 

This thread is about John Kasich's stance on abortion. He has publicly said:

 

I am against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother.

 

But

 

He is against, and what Wiffle pointed out, he is against LATE TERM abortions for any reason. Including rape or anything. And I agree with that. And I'm not even a religious person. A late term abortion is generally accepted as an abortion after the 22 - 26 weeks that the law draws a line. That line is drawn because science says after that time a baby can survive outside the womb on its own. The fetus versus baby argument cannot be used edjr. The baby can breathe and survive on its own at that time. By aborting it in LATE TERM like that, even a pro choice person cannot argue you are not straight up killing the baby. The woman that was raped, a horrible thing to happen, would be compounding that problem by waiting 7-8-9 months to make her choice and now doing something just as vile.

 

I don't find that looney at all. In fact thinking late term abortions are okay I would find looney.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Because pro-lifers believe that if you give an inch they'll take a mile, and pro-choicers believe if they take an inch, they'll take a mile. There really is no middle ground.

 

My question to pro-choicers is do they really believe the Supreme Court will ever reverse Roe V. Wade? I mean we just had a very conservative court and they didn't, and yet there people are scared to death of it. I think there is greater fear mongering on the left than the right on this one.

 

It's very much like the whole 2nd Amendment and Gun Control issue, but in reverse. In that issue the Republicans are scared to give an inch, even if its common sense because they fear the Dems will take it all the way down to no guns ever.

[edjr 5,567]

 

This thread is about John Kasich's stance on abortion. He has publicly said:

 

I am against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother.

 

But

 

He is against, and what Wiffle pointed out, he is against LATE TERM abortions for any reason. Including rape or anything. And I agree with that. And I'm not even a religious person. A late term abortion is generally accepted as an abortion after the 22 - 26 weeks that the law draws a line. That line is drawn because science says after that time a baby can survive outside the womb on its own. The fetus versus baby argument cannot be used edjr. The baby can breathe and survive on its own at that time. By aborting it in LATE TERM like that, even a pro choice person cannot argue you are straight up killing the baby. The woman that was raped, a horrible thing to happen, would be compounding that problem by waiting 7-8-9 months to make her choice and now doing something just as vile.

 

Loon

 

will you republicans stop focking with women and their bodies? none of your business. focking christ.

 

 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Because pro-lifers believe that if you give an inch they'll take a mile, and pro-choicers believe if they take an inch, they'll take a mile. There really is no middle ground.

 

My question to pro-choicers is do they really believe the Supreme Court will ever reverse Roe V. Wade? I mean we just had a very conservative court and they didn't, and yet there people are scared to death of it. I think there is greater fear mongering on the left than the right on this one.

 

I think that the current question in front of SCOTUS right now will greatly impact Roe v. Wade. If States, like Texas, create barriers such that it is almost impossible to get an abortion even in the first trimester, then it won't really matter if Roe v. Wade is still the "law of the land".

[TimmySmith 2,782]

 

It's very much like the whole 2nd Amendment and Gun Control issue, but in reverse. In that issue the Republicans are scared to give an inch, even if its common sense because they fear the Dems will take it all the way down to no guns ever.

I agree to a point. We have to see what happens with a left leaning SC.

[MDC 5,892]

Roe v Wade won't ever be overturned. Loons like Kasich will just set up regs and roadblocks to shut down abortion clinics and make it expensive and massively inconvenient to get one. If actually respect him more if he were a Cruz type who just comes right out and tells you where he stands instead of a little focking weasel.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

 

I think that the current question in front of SCOTUS right now will greatly impact Roe v. Wade. If States, like Texas, create barriers such that it is almost impossible to get an abortion even in the first trimester, then it won't really matter if Roe v. Wade is still the "law of the land".

SC decisions in no way guarantee the availability of anything, everywhere. Gun laws certainly vary from place to place.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Roe v Wade won't ever be overturned. Loons like Kasich will just set up regs and roadblocks to shut down abortion clinics and make it expensive and massively inconvenient to get one. If actually respect him more if he were a Cruz type who just comes right out and tells you where he stands instead of a little focking weasel.

 

Didn't you say last week something to the effect "I don't watch the debates, if I want to know a candidates positions I just look it up on the internet or read about it"

 

Well it appears you didn't visit John Kasich's own website then.

 

Right on his website. johnkasich.com he has an "Issues" page. On that issues page he has a "Respecting the Sanctiy of Life" page. A whole page dedicated to this topic. Here it is: https://johnkasich.c...ctingHumanLife/

So he doesn't hide it, its right there all over his own website.

The reason you don't hear him speak about it much is because this is the Republican Primary, where they all are pro life. So it doesn't come up much. :facepalm:

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

 

This thread is about John Kasich's stance on abortion. He has publicly said:

 

I am against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother.

 

But

 

He is against, and what Wiffle pointed out, he is against LATE TERM abortions for any reason. Including rape or anything. And I agree with that. And I'm not even a religious person. A late term abortion is generally accepted as an abortion after the 22 - 26 weeks that the law draws a line. That line is drawn because science says after that time a baby can survive outside the womb on its own. The fetus versus baby argument cannot be used edjr. The baby can breathe and survive on its own at that time. By aborting it in LATE TERM like that, even a pro choice person cannot argue you are not straight up killing the baby. The woman that was raped, a horrible thing to happen, would be compounding that problem by waiting 7-8-9 months to make her choice and now doing something just as vile.

 

I don't find that looney at all. In fact thinking late term abortions are okay I would find looney.

 

I don't know that there is a "generally accepted" definition of what late term is. I have seen people say anything after 20 weeks. Others go as low as 16 weeks. How about we come to a common understanding of what the definition is before we try to figure out when it happens. Both sides like to change definitions and terms so that people get confused.

 

Now, you have already stated that you are against all abortions unless it is rape, incest or health of the mother. So, you are saying that woman should not be allowed to take the "day after pill"? I have you in the far right bucket at this point.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

SC decisions in no way guarantee the availability of anything, everywhere. Gun laws certainly vary from place to place.

 

I never said that it did. However, states can make it such that abortions are not available at all like Texas is trying to do. If a state ever did that with guns, what do you think would happen there?

[KSB2424 3,083]

 

I don't know that there is a "generally accepted" definition of what late term is. I have seen people say anything after 20 weeks. Others go as low as 16 weeks. How about we come to a common understanding of what the definition is before we try to figure out when it happens. Both sides like to change definitions and terms so that people get confused.

 

Now, you have already stated that you are against all abortions unless it is rape, incest or health of the mother. So, you are saying that woman should not be allowed to take the "day after pill"? I have you in the far right bucket at this point.

 

Late term aboritions generally considered an abortion after the line the gov't draws. Right now its somewehre between 20-26 weeks preggos. I think dependent on the state. Late Term means after that. Which is pretty much the last trimester plus maybe a week or two in the middle trimester.

 

And me personally? I've struggled with this topic for 20 years. Personally speaking I would never want the woman I impregnated to get an abortion but I realize it is a necessary evil and would be against a SC overturning R v W. But I'm okay with getting gov't out of funding as well as not celebrating abortion and trying to push for other choices like adoption.

 

So of course the morning after pill is okay.

 

But I am against LATE TERM abortions for any reason.

[Thread Killer 10]

 

Loon

 

will you republicans stop focking with women and their bodies? none of your business. focking christ.

 

Well, unless the baby is a female.

 

Then you totally have the right to kill the sh!t out of her.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

 

Well, unless the baby is a female.

 

Then you totally have the right to kill the sh!t out of her.

 

What if she has one leg that is thicker than the other?

[MDC 5,892]

 

Didn't you say last week something to the effect "I don't watch the debates, if I want to know a candidates positions I just look it up on the internet or read about it"

 

Well it appears you didn't visit John Kasich's own website then.

 

Right on his website. johnkasich.com he has an "Issues" page. On that issues page he has a "Respecting the Sanctiy of Life" page. A whole page dedicated to this topic. Here it is: https://johnkasich.c...ctingHumanLife/

So he doesn't hide it, its right there all over his own website.

The reason you don't hear him speak about it much is because this is the Republican Primary, where they all are pro life. So it doesn't come up much. :facepalm:

 

No, I didn't visit Kasich's website because he has no real shot at the presidency. I did read a few articles on his deliberate attempt to come across as a moderate while enacting fringe right restrictions on abortion, by not addressing Planned Parenthood or talking about abortion while his own staff crafts restrictions on it.

 

The reason we really don't seem to hear about it is that somewhere along the line Kasich decided he'd play the part of the moderate in this GOP primary. We will hear about it if he's tapped as a VP.

[edjr 5,567]

How come when it's a human it's an abortion and when it's a chicken, it's an omelette?

[hoytdwow 202]

There is a cogent argument for defunding Planned Parenthood, but it has nothing to do with abortion (hint: they don't need the money). Leave it to Repubtards to cave to the fundies on this tho. PP does not use federal money to perform abortions.

[Jetdoc 20]

Because we eat chicken? Mmmm...fetusbutter.

[edjr 5,567]

There is a cogent argument for defunding Planned Parenthood, but it has nothing to do with abortion (hint: they don't need the money). Leave it to Repubtards to cave to the fundies on this tho. PP does not use federal money to perform abortions.

 

I hope they use a plunger and scissors

[Hardcore troubadour 12,653]

According to the book Freakanomics, crime rates went down years after abortion became legal.

[KSB2424 3,083]

There is a cogent argument for defunding Planned Parenthood, but it has nothing to do with abortion (hint: they don't need the money). Leave it to Repubtards to cave to the fundies on this tho. PP does not use federal money to perform abortions.

 

I sorta agree here but, they don't use federal monies directly for abortions but you know this, when you are being propped up for other things in your business, it gives the flexibility to perform abortions indirectly. It's sort of a ruse. Lets say you perform services A, B, C and D. But the funding can only go to ABC but NOT D. Well even though it doesn't go directly to the D "bucket", it really does. It props the business up so it can do D for free.

[Jetdoc 20]

PP does not use federal money to perform abortions.

 

No, they use federal money to provide information to people on how to get an abortion, including providing referrals and setting up appointments for them.

[Mike Honcho 4,035]

 

Well lets talk about defunding Planned Parenthood then. I'm gald you asked. Something pretty much all of Pro Life Republicans want to do. Not just Kasich. Shocker, I know.

 

The websites you are reading is one side of the story. It's slanted. It's coming from a pro-choice point of view. Let's look at it from a business point of view something both you and I are more familiar with.

 

Take the word abortion out as it only muddies the waters. Lets substitute abortion out for "providing a service". When the gov't helps fund, or subsidize funding a service it props it up. It often time creates a bubble. It's changes the normal course of the supply-demand-price model.

 

Stopping that funding would force this marketplace to reset. To reset to a point where only the service providers that are truly needed survive. If there was a service provider every 5 square miles before but now 40% went under then there is a service provider every 9 square miles because thats all that was really needed based on the demand. The half of them left in Ohio are the one's that are left because they are only what is really needed.

 

Now lets put abortion back into it. Defunding PP or other clinics does not mean putting them out of business per se. It means the ones who survive on the their own accord by accepting insurance and medicaid (which everyone has under Obamacare), being TAX EXEMPT and also accepting donations from donors.

 

Any woman, any woman, that wants an abortion can get one in Ohio. She just might have to drive a couple extra miles now since there isn't one on every block. Cry me a river.

 

The bolded is some of the most ridiculous set of assumptions based on a high schooler's understanding of economics as learned from reading the summary section of Wikipedia.

 

The large font is just me shaking my head at your head in the sand spin on the GOP strategies to eliminate abortion in this country, despite the fact that the majority of people don't want that to be the case.

[KSB2424 3,083]

 

No, they use federal money to provide information to people on how to get an abortion, including providing referrals and setting up appointments for them.

 

As well as creating a SUPER PAC to help elect gov't officials to keep them in business.

[hoytdwow 202]

 

I sorta agree here but, they don't use federal monies directly for abortions but you know this, when you are being propped up for other things in your business, it gives the flexibility to perform abortions indirectly. It's sort of a ruse. Lets say you perform services A, B, C and D. But the funding can only go to ABC but NOT D. Well even though it doesn't go directly to the D "bucket", it really does. It props the business up so it can do D for free.

My point is that if the GOP argued that PP didn't need the money, more people would support their position.

[edjr 5,567]

did you see the inured war vet who tried to move from Kansas to Colorado so he could smoke weed to ease the pain and had his kids taken away?

[KSB2424 3,083]

 

The bolded is some of the most ridiculous set of assumptions based on a high schooler's understanding of economics as learned from reading the summary section of Wikipedia.

 

The large font is just me shaking my head at your head in the sand spin on the GOP strategies to eliminate abortion in this country, despite the fact that the majority of people don't want that to be the case.

 

Are we saying a woman cannot get an abortion if she wants to in Ohio? That's what we're saying? Of course she can. There might not be as many clinics to choose from. She might not be steered that way and marketed to get one, but if SHE wants one she drives up to the many there, walks in, gives them her medicaid or obamacare card and gets one. As long as it's before the 26 weeks (or whatever the deadline is)

[KSB2424 3,083]

My point is that if the GOP argued that PP didn't need the money, more people would support their position.

 

 

But its such a divisive issue, people dig in.

 

Abortion to me ranks about 35th on the issue list of importance. I don't vote nor not vote for a candidate based on this one issue alone.

[edjr 5,567]

 

 

But its such a divisive issue, people dig in.

 

Abortion to me ranks about 35th on the issue list of importance. I don't vote nor not vote for a candidate based on this one issue alone.

 

you are a loon too.

 

if you support a guy with that type of lunatic stance, sorry, you're as nuts as he is

[KSB2424 3,083]

 

you are a loon too.

 

if you support a guy with that type of lunatic stance, sorry, you're as nuts as he is

 

edjr that's fine. You would not support any Pro-Life candidate then. And that's okay that's your prerogative.

 

But just so we're clear. You support a woman that was raped in having the right to abort a baby at 7-8-9 months pregnant. When the baby can in fact survive on its own.

 

That's the part you are calling looney.

[edjr 5,567]

 

edjr that's fine. You would not support any Pro-Life candidate then. And that's okay that's your prerogative.

 

But just so we're clear. You support a woman that was raped in having the right to abort a baby at 7-8-9 months pregnant. When the baby can in fact survive on its own.

 

That's the part you are calling looney.

What is this China?

 

where can you get a 8 month abortion? that isn't a medical emergency

 

You are correct, that is crazy. I do not support that at all. I'd say they cut off should be 4 months. doesn't matter how they got knocked up, it's their body

[Thread Killer 10]

What is this China?

 

where can you get a 8 month abortion? that isn't a medical emergency

 

You are correct, that is crazy. I do not support that at all. I'd say they cut off should be 4 months. doesn't matter how they got knocked up, it's their body

 

That's what a late term abortion is, you focking dolt.

[edjr 5,567]

 

That's what a late term abortion is, you focking dolt.

 

they wake up one day after 8 months and say, fock it, lets cut this thing out?

[Thread Killer 10]

 

they wake up one day after 8 months and say, fock it, lets cut this thing out?

 

Pretty deplorable, huh?

[edjr 5,567]

 

Pretty deplorable, huh?

 

Excuse me for being clueless (as per usual)

 

even I, the king of abortions could never be okay with this. I assumed it was for medical emergencies not for change of heart.

 

now say you found out at 7 months your kid was going to be gocolts? then I am okay with late term abortions

[KSB2424 3,083]

 

That's what a late term abortion is, you focking dolt.

 

To be fair Wiffleball muddied the waters. He frames the thread that Kasich would somehow magically make it where a woman raped can't get an abortion. When in fact Kasich wants a ban on late term abortions for any reason.

 

ontheissues.com is a non partisan website that document a canidates history on all issues.

 

 

Q: You're pro-life?

A: Right.

Q: Should there be exceptions?

A: Yes, I have always been for exceptions.

Q: Which ones?

A: For rape, incest, and life of the mother.

Q: Two of your competitors, Marco Rubio and Scott Walker, said they're for no exceptions. Does that make you more electable?

A: No matter what your position is on the issue, you have to have respect for people. And I do. And it's an issue that people have a right to have a different point of view.

Q: Do you think that they would be electable against a Democrat, if they support no exceptions?

A: Well, I think that it's an important issue, but I think there's many other issues that are really critical, early childhood, infant mortality, the environment, education. I think we focus too much on just one issue.

Q: But it's one that matters in a lot of people's lives.

A: To a lot of people on both sides.

Q: Why are exceptions part of your belief?

A: Because I think it's reasonable

 

 

 

Kasich is] pro-life except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger. He wouldn’t pick a pro-choice running mate or nominate pro-choice judges. He sees no point in discussing the abortion issue either. It doesn’t serve any purpose, he said. He can’t change his principles. Unlike other pro-lifers whose abortion position also bespeaks a divisive judgmental look at all citizens, [Kasich’s spokesman said], “you’ll never see him pounding on a podium screaming divisive rhetoric.”

 

He is for defunding PP and for pushing for adoption over abortion and for banning all late term abortions for any reason. Pretty much the standard GOP stance.

[Mike Honcho 4,035]

Are we saying a woman cannot get an abortion if she wants to in Ohio? That's what we're saying? Of course she can. There might not be as many clinics to choose from. She might not be steered that way and marketed to get one, but if SHE wants one she drives up to the many there, walks in, gives them her medicaid or obamacare card and gets one. As long as it's before the 26 weeks (or whatever the deadline is)

After reading your made up economic theories, I should't be suprised at your wild azz conclusion from my quote and even more made up statements..."marketed to get one".

 

Honest question, doesn't your azz get sore pulling so much BS out of it?

[edjr 5,567]

After reading your made up economic theories, I should't be suprised at your wild azz conclusion from my quote and even more made up statements..."marketed to get one".

 

Honest question, doesn't your azz get sore pulling so much BS out of it?