For over 100 years Ohio has required simple majority of votes in order to amend its constitution.  Earlier this year Ohioans gathered over 500,000 signatures to amend Ohio's constitution in the November election to enshrine abortion rights.  Early polls showed that 58% of Ohio voters favored the amendment.

trying to sell it, but maybe Republicans just love children more than Dems do and think they should get a chance to live instead of being butchered before birth?  Dems would have us believe that unborn children are an expendable commodity.  It seems to be matter of perspective and whether you believe a woman has a responsibility to accept the consequences of her own actions, or in the case of pregnancy, her inaction in preventing it in the first place.  Birth control is available to prevent pregnancy, but it requires foresight and responsibility on the part of the woman.  Murder as the only alternative seems like an extreme choice to me.  If she is not responsible enough to insure there will be no pregnancy, then she should be required to comport to the societal interests in giving children a chance to thrive, which means choosing life over an arbitrary death.  

What will you do then? They are basing it on the same rationale as Dobbs.

As I said, I just want people having sex to take some responsibility and not become baby killers for 15 minutes (or in the case of mature guys like us who have more control, 45 minutes - lol) of pleasure.  I'm even okay with a morning-after approach, but not okay with terminating a fetus that is viable if removed from the mother and having the benefits of modern medical science.  

Women should have control over their bodies. End of story. Consequences, hell. Life is not sacred. If you don't want the kid, flush it. If it's the size of the tip of your pinkie, it's not a human life.

Many Republicans want NO EXCEPTIONS.  They would FORCE women and CHILDREN to have babies in the cases of rape and incest.  After all, the unborn child is innocent, right?  Republicans would not allow an exception for the life of the mother - if she dies, she dies.  After all, the unborn child is innocent, right?  

After that, they don't give a shit.

the "no exceptions" crowd.  There are some circumstances, as you point out, that going to full term might cost the mother her life.  If two doctors agree that is the case, then I agree there can be these kinds of exceptions.  However, I don't consider an exception a woman who is careless, gets pregnant, is carrying a fetus well beyond the date of viability, and then suddenly decides in the seventh or eighth month that she just changed her mind and doesn't want to have a baby.  I am a proponent of some middle ground that generally prohibits arbitrary abortions, but allows them in cases where the mother is at risk carrying it to full term, or where the father is a rapist, but these are but a small percentage of the abortions being done each year in the US, probably around 1%.  The other 99% are arbitrary and capricious on the whim of the mother.  There should be consequences for reckless behavior like there is for other instances of disregard for human life.

Seems to me that someone who considers the termination of a pregnancy to be "butchering before birth" would be against such "butchering" in ALL circumstances.

about his disregard for human life if he doesn't want anything to do with the baby and doesn't want to support it.  
What consequences should he face?  

He should pay child support if the mother decides to raise the child on her own.

I think I was pretty clear where I stand.  The problem with Dems is that they use the 1% that should be exceptions to argue for all abortion under any circumstances, and I oppose that.  The outliers should be given consideration, but should not control the issue.  

of defense for the unborn child, the woman is, and she has remedies at law against the man for money damages. It starts with a paternity test, which can be compelled through a court proceeding.  Paying child support for 18 years is a substantial consequence as any man who has been in this situation will tell you.  

Who tell the guy she is using birth control but is not?

…and I’m pretty sure the sky isn’t falling. In fact, nothing seemed to have changed at all. Except the price of gasoline. That just keeps going up. Probably unrelated to abortion though.

But not so much, it now seems...

If you really think the sky isn't falling, ask women in the states where abortion is now banned. They are traveling to other states, spending huge amounts of money and often ending up with less than adequate medical care.
Here's one example. Someone I know is in a long-term relationship. They were not using contraception because both believed she could not conceive. Well, it turned out she did anyway. No abortion care was available where they live so they traveled to a nearby state. The best clinic there was so backed up with people from their state they went to another provider that turned our to be FAR from adequate. Result: she hemorrhaged for weeks afterward.
A long-time Republican voter, he will never vote Republican again.
PS: Oh, and the price of gasoline has been going down and near me is as cheap as it was before Covid.

Old, white, entitled dudes demand to control what women 2 generations younger do with their bodies.

What did the radical feminists warn us about? Deaths due to back alley abortions. That hasn’t happened. Whats regnant women in states that limit abortions are either getting the abortion within the specified time, going out of state to get an abortion, or having their babies.

What I said was, "No abortion care was available where they live." Well how else could that be unless it was illegal? So are you intellectually challenged or a complete partisan hack? Or both? We know it's the latter.
Also, I never said she was barren. She wasn't, despite your weird attempt a sleuthing. She may well be now, after her botched abortion.
Thanks for your concern.

…moving from pro life states to pro abortion states. The way the Dems always talked about it, it seemed like once Roe got overturned no man in a red state would ever get laid again. Yet, that hasn’t happened. In fact I’ve run into quite a few providers in red and blue states tell me without any prompting that Democrats are sick because they want to murder babies. Maybe Dems have a mistaken view of how mainstream their position is.

It puts the lie to everything you just said.

be allowed to terminate a pregnancy all the way up to the moment of birth?  

...you use deliberately provocative, inflammatory language.  You refer to abortion as "murder" and you call the women "baby killers."  You call the procedure "butchering."

NO ONE thinks a woman should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy up to the moment of birth.
I dare you to find ONE example of anyone doing this.
If you can't, then STFU.
PS: I have. friend who says a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy up to the 18th year after birth. So maybe you know him.

Fetterman:

with an inconvenient TRUTH, they call it a republican lie despite the fact that members of their own party made the statements they are alleging are Republican lies.  Most Dems are low-information voters, so they will buy into it, but Republicans are smarter and usually will check the source like CKS has done before accepting the claim that "NO ONE wants women to have the right to an abortion up to the moment of birth", even when the Dems have made it the law in several Blue states.  

You and Chickie should run off together and bathe in the Republican lie machine.

that there are NO states that allow abortion up until the moment of birth?  We'll wait for the tap dance.  Lol

Show me ONE instance where an actual abortion of choice of a viable fetus -- not one to save the life of the mother -- was done just before birth.

That wasn't my question.  I will answer it for you . . . .  These eight states have passed legislation that allows abortion up to the moment of birth . . . .

kind of sexy, but that wasn't your point.  Lol   Yes, slicing and dicing a baby just before he takes his first breath is always going to be uglier than reluctantly sacrificing an unborn fetus during the early stages of gestation in order to give priority to the health of the mother or a minor that has been raped.  For me, the difference is as wide as the grand canyon. For most Dems, they seem to see no difference, so I'm putting it in terms relative to the different perspectives on morality to show maybe an all or nothing approach is NOT the way to go.  There should be laws to protect viable babies with exceptions carved out for the two reasons I noted to give the mother's life priority over the fetus.  

And you're deluded to boot. And you refuse to comprehend that, as a practical matter, there are NO abortions at birth of viable fetuses. NONE.
So your entire argument is based on a tautology.

Why are you using the word "abortion?"  In another post you referred to late-term abortion as "murder" and you call the women "baby killers."  You call the procedure "butchering."  You also call late-term abortion "...slicing and dicing a baby just before he takes his first breath..."

so you should not think of it that way.  

I have no medial license + I have no vagina = I have no position.
   
I am not entitled to one.

You don't need a medical license or a vagina to have a position on this.
All you need to be is a person with a brain.
Or a person who has conceived a pregnancy.
It takes two to tango, right?

…if you don’t own a gun you shouldn’t have a position on gun control.  

I actually agree with Willy! Am I insane? Cuz Willy can't be sane.

gun ownership is not a medical procedure.