SB 1878 - Abortion Bill

[guido911]

TFAN: They call it "women's reproductive rights" both as a means to sanitize the actual barbarism associated with the abortion procedure and to frame the debate. Folks like Nelly and Steve argue it's the woman's body, thus it's only a woman's issue and the government should butt out. Of course, you do not hear that argument when it comes to the government forcing a man's body into a military uniform via the draft to fight and perhaps die to preserve these "reproductive rights".

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

TFAN: They call it "women's reproductive rights" both as a means to sanitize the actual barbarism associated with the abortion procedure and to frame the debate. Folks like Nelly and Steve argue it's the woman's body, thus it's only a woman's issue and the government should butt out. Of course, you do not hear that argument when it comes to the government forcing a man's body into a military uniform via the draft to fight and perhaps die to preserve these "reproductive rights".

I have never said that the father should not have any say in the matter.  In cases where the pregnancy involves a married or committed man and partner, of course the father should have an equal say in the matter.

In cases of a single mother where the father is absent or is not involved for any reason, it is the woman that has to carry the child for 9 months in her body, and she has the ultimate authority.

Many married couples make the decision to terminate a pregnancy because of fetus defects or complications; it is never a situation to be taken lightly.  The new law forces mothers to view their defective fetus via ultrasound just prior to abortion.  It all seems just damn cruel to me.

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by Steve

quote:Originally posted by NellieBly

I love it when men argue abortion.

I understand your point, and in some ways I am sorry I chimed in on this issue.  There have been some great Op-Ed articles in the World recently about this bill.

In the least, this latest measure is just one more effort to lay guilt on women contemplating an abortion, without regard to the circumstances.  For shame to the Oklahoma Legislature.  The Tulsa female legislator that co-sponsored this bill was asked about the ultrasound provisions, and she said "well the woman could close her eyes!"  (I am paraphrasing here.)  Typical callous attitude.

And I also want to add, that until a man (myself included), can do nothing more painful than pass a kindey stone, we should stay the heck out of the debate and defer pregnancy decisions to women and their doctors.  It is women that have to carry the child, endure the birth, nausea, discomfort, hormone changes, episiotomy, and years of lacatation.  We men may contribute the sperm, but that is all when it comes to the physical effort of birthing a child.

This latest OK "abortion bill" is an abomination, and I sincerely hope it falls dead in a court challenge.

[Chris]

Has Gov. Henry decided if he is signing this into law?

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Wow CF. I am pushing a theocracy because I support a pro-life/anti-abortion law on religious grounds? I also support anti-murder and anti-theft laws on religious grounds (that 10 Commandments thing). Maybe this country is a theocracy then.

Guido, my point was that the "my religious views dictate..." theory is non-persuasive on people that do not share your religious views.  Primarily religion is the the reasoning behind laws inhibiting abortion.  If religion can be used to justify this law, why not others?  I am not accusing you of trying to form a theocracy, I merely pointed out that it is an accurate term for describing a country of laws justified by religion.

The other laws you mention in that 10 Commandment thing have a strong societal basis.  Property rights, individual liberties, and general societal harmony.  You can justify most existing laws apart from any religious context which may exist.  

The non-secular phrase heralding our inalienable rights is decidedly neutral as to which god granted those rights (only some Christian gods chime in on abortion, other Christian gods are ambivalent,  and other faith's gods are pro-choice).  Thus ruling or justifying laws which many religions and potential creators differ on proves difficult.  Our nation is based on religion to be sure, but on the notion that no one religion is the correct one.

Not trying to be offensive or even argue my point, just trying to explain why a theology based argument is non-persuasive on many people and/or the courts.

[tulsacyclist]

..but killing babies is such a swell idea. Everyone should have the "right" to do that.

</sarcasm>

[cannon_fodder]

Heh, well if you want to bate a discussion on the larger issue any good debater would have to start by rephrasing the discussion quickly away from the emotionally attaching word "baby" to fertilized egg,  embryo, or fetus depending on the stage of development.   Baby refers to a child from age "birth to one year of age."  

That would be immediately followed up by biblical reinforcing of the notion that an unborn child is not a "baby" in that the death of a fetus was a property crime punished with a fine.  Whereas the death of a baby was considered murder.  

But man, we really don't want to go over all that again.[xx(]  

I just thought this law was interesting and had heard a bit about it and found it interesting to see what it really said.  I thought others might be interested also - on either side of the debate.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Wow CF. I am pushing a theocracy because I support a pro-life/anti-abortion law on religious grounds? I also support anti-murder and anti-theft laws on religious grounds (that 10 Commandments thing). Maybe this country is a theocracy then.

Guido, my point was that the "my religious views dictate..." theory is non-persuasive on people that do not share your religious views.  Primarily religion is the the reasoning behind laws inhibiting abortion.  If religion can be used to justify this law, why not others?  I am not accusing you of trying to form a theocracy, I merely pointed out that it is an accurate term for describing a country of laws justified by religion.

The other laws you mention in that 10 Commandment thing have a strong societal basis.  Property rights, individual liberties, and general societal harmony.  You can justify most existing laws apart from any religious context which may exist.  

The non-secular phrase heralding our inalienable rights is decidedly neutral as to which god granted those rights (only some Christian gods chime in on abortion, other Christian gods are ambivalent,  and other faith's gods are pro-choice).  Thus ruling or justifying laws which many religions and potential creators differ on proves difficult.  Our nation is based on religion to be sure, but on the notion that no one religion is the correct one.

Not trying to be offensive or even argue my point, just trying to explain why a theology based argument is non-persuasive on many people and/or the courts.

I do not think your being offensive...just wrong[]

My opinions on abortion, embryonic stem cell research and indeed my opposition to the death penalty are based on religious principles. I also support some programs to assist the poor and, believe it or not, would support some type of universal health care (not those advanced by our presidential candidates though)...also for religious reasons. By supporting legislation that is consistent with my relgious views does not make me a theocrat--which in the context of your post I thought was intended to be demeaning. It makes me a citizen with an opinion.

[tulsacyclist]

It is interesting and I appreciate you posting it, CF.

I'm not a debater by any means, I just wanted to inject a sarcastic comment into the thread for whatever reason. =]

Ever see the movie Juno? Su-Chin at the abortion clinic protesting and saying 'All babies want to get borned!!!'. Funny stuff.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Steve

quote:Originally posted by guido911

TFAN: They call it "women's reproductive rights" both as a means to sanitize the actual barbarism associated with the abortion procedure and to frame the debate. Folks like Nelly and Steve argue it's the woman's body, thus it's only a woman's issue and the government should butt out. Of course, you do not hear that argument when it comes to the government forcing a man's body into a military uniform via the draft to fight and perhaps die to preserve these "reproductive rights".

I have never said that the father should not have any say in the matter.  In cases where the pregnancy involves a married or committed man and partner, of course the father should have an equal say in the matter.

In cases of a single mother where the father is absent or is not involved for any reason, it is the woman that has to carry the child for 9 months in her body, and she has the ultimate authority.

Many married couples make the decision to terminate a pregnancy because of fetus defects or complications; it is never a situation to be taken lightly.  The new law forces mothers to view their defective fetus via ultrasound just prior to abortion.  It all seems just damn cruel to me.

Oh I'm sorry Steve, I guess I misunderstood this exact quote from one of your posts in this thread: "Abortion is not an easy decision to be taken lightly, but it is the fundamental right of any female to decide these matters between herself, her doctors, and her conscience." Perhaps I should have just presumed you meant to include men having the "fundamental right of the female."

As for the reast of your post re: viewing defects in the fetus. I wonder if you even know statistically why women have abortions. If not, try this link.  

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

[TeeDub]

Can't say as that I approve...  And I would bet no one cares what I think anyway...

But if she doesn't want the baby, I am sure not going to be the person that tells her she shas to have it.

I hate these niche issues that no one will ever change their minds on.   Either you are for it or against it.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by TeeDub


I hate these niche issues that no one will ever change their minds on.   Either you are for it or against it.

Really? Tell that Jane Roe a la Roe v. Wade fame (or infamy).

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/21/mccorvey.interview/

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Steve

quote:Originally posted by Steve

quote:Originally posted by NellieBly

I love it when men argue abortion.

I understand your point, and in some ways I am sorry I chimed in on this issue.  There have been some great Op-Ed articles in the World recently about this bill.

In the least, this latest measure is just one more effort to lay guilt on women contemplating an abortion, without regard to the circumstances.  For shame to the Oklahoma Legislature.  The Tulsa female legislator that co-sponsored this bill was asked about the ultrasound provisions, and she said "well the woman could close her eyes!"  (I am paraphrasing here.)  Typical callous attitude.

And I also want to add, that until a man (myself included), can do nothing more painful than pass a kindey stone, we should stay the heck out of the debate and defer pregnancy decisions to women and their doctors.  It is women that have to carry the child, endure the birth, nausea, discomfort, hormone changes, episiotomy, and years of lacatation.  We men may contribute the sperm, but that is all when it comes to the physical effort of birthing a child.

This latest OK "abortion bill" is an abomination, and I sincerely hope it falls dead in a court challenge.

Your weighing the life of a human being versus nausea, discomfort and lactation.  I hope you realize how petty and foolish that sounds?  Not conceiving a child in the first place sounds like a better option, but that requires personal responsibility, and from time to time a little thing called "restraint."

Heaven forbid we expect people accept responsibility for the choices they make.  No...  The people who bear the burden of the abortion are the children (the only party without culpability).  The countless thousands of people who can't conceive or want to adopt one of these "inconveniences" eliminate the excuse of "not ready, not financially able, still in school, etc" which happen to encompass 75%+ of the reasons given for the decision to have an abortion.

[TeeDub]

And who are you to tell me what I have to do again?


If I want to have an abortion or for that matter, a haircut, it is none of your business.

[jamesrage]

quote:Originally posted by NellieBly

It's redundant.
Oklahoma Planned Parenthood does not provide abortions and women already receive an ultra sounds prior to the abortion to determine how advanced the pregancy is.

Then there should be no problem if this gets passed.