News:

Long overdue maintenance happening. See post in the top forum.

Main Menu

SB 1878 - Abortion Bill

Started by cannon_fodder, April 10, 2008, 12:37:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

PonderInc

Ok-la-homa! where the fundamentalist patriarchy comes sweeping through the plains...

I'll be mailing in my donation check to Planned Parenthood today, along with a clipping from today's paper showing the OK Senate overturning the veto.

And everyone who actually cares about children (you know, the part that comes after the fetus part) needs to be mailing in their checks to the Family & Children's Services Center, or Community Action Project (runs Tulsa's Head Start program) or the Children's Defense Fund, etc, etc.   Did you know that April is National Child Abuse Prevention Month?

In 2005, over 13,300 Oklahoma kids were confirmed victims of child abuse and neglect.  In 2004, 51 children DIED from abuse and neglect.

Oklahoma ranks in the bottom five states in overall child vulnerability and is the worst for child-abuse deaths based on population.

I could include more statistics...like how little tax money flows to the children of this state who are in desperate need of help.  It seems our oh-so-wise legislature only wants to take over responsibility for your choices about abortion...they don't give a dam_ about what happens to the actual children who find themselves born into hideous circumstances.  

But who knows better?  The woman (or girl), who may be living with poverty, domestic violence, sexual abuse, drug addiction...or the prosperous white man in the suit sitting in the OK Senate?  

Instead of forcing the woman (or pregnant 12 year old) to view a picture of the fetus, the doctors should be required to hand her a picture of her Senator with name, cell phone number and address...so she knows exactly where to go for help with the sh_t hits the fan.

guido911

quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:
Originally posted by guido911


As a side note, has anyone ever pointed out that you come off somewhat arrogant? I mean, you act as if you were appointed (or annointed) the "debate referee", free to judge how an argument is being conducted and offering us a free education on how we can improve. [:)]



AOX points it out about every other day.  I'm not trying to be arrogant, just trying to keep threads as discussion instead of descending in totality to "baby killer" vs. "freedom haters" or whatever.  The alternative would be to ignore it (thread usually goes downhill) or join in (and how).

Generally, I've found if someone points out it is in danger of descending and explains why, it either dies or actually gets back on track.  This is true for when I point it out, or when someone tells me I'm going over board.  In this instance, I understand that most people are more emotionally involved than I am so I was trying to explain that as a matter of discussion either side's emotional arguments are not effective.

Perhaps I was stating the obvious, but trying to get back to logic is the only way I know how to respond to emotional arguments without responding in kind.  I apologize if it comes off as arrogant.  I assure you I do not think my own opinion is any more important than any other (well, ok. Honestly I think it is more important than some, but not most.  [;)]).

Thanks just the same for point it out, keep me on the straight and narrow!



No, thank you. Thank you for being you and being there for us when we stray...[;)]
Someone get Hoss a pacifier.

guido911

quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc

Ok-la-homa! where the fundamentalist patriarchy comes sweeping through the plains...

I'll be mailing in my donation check to Planned Parenthood today, along with a clipping from today's paper showing the OK Senate overturning the veto.

And everyone who actually cares about children (you know, the part that comes after the fetus part) needs to be mailing in their checks to the Family & Children's Services Center, or Community Action Project (runs Tulsa's Head Start program) or the Children's Defense Fund, etc, etc.   Did you know that April is National Child Abuse Prevention Month?

In 2005, over 13,300 Oklahoma kids were confirmed victims of child abuse and neglect.  In 2004, 51 children DIED from abuse and neglect.

Oklahoma ranks in the bottom five states in overall child vulnerability and is the worst for child-abuse deaths based on population.

I could include more statistics...like how little tax money flows to the children of this state who are in desperate need of help.  It seems our oh-so-wise legislature only wants to take over responsibility for your choices about abortion...they don't give a dam_ about what happens to the actual children who find themselves born into hideous circumstances.  

But who knows better?  The woman (or girl), who may be living with poverty, domestic violence, sexual abuse, drug addiction...or the prosperous white man in the suit sitting in the OK Senate?  

Instead of forcing the woman (or pregnant 12 year old) to view a picture of the fetus, the doctors should be required to hand her a picture of her Senator with name, cell phone number and address...so she knows exactly where to go for help with the sh_t hits the fan.



Sore loser.
Someone get Hoss a pacifier.

iplaw

quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc

Ok-la-homa! where the fundamentalist patriarchy comes sweeping through the plains...

I'll be mailing in my donation check to Planned Parenthood today, along with a clipping from today's paper showing the OK Senate overturning the veto.

And everyone who actually cares about children (you know, the part that comes after the fetus part) needs to be mailing in their checks to the Family & Children's Services Center, or Community Action Project (runs Tulsa's Head Start program) or the Children's Defense Fund, etc, etc.   Did you know that April is National Child Abuse Prevention Month?

In 2005, over 13,300 Oklahoma kids were confirmed victims of child abuse and neglect.  In 2004, 51 children DIED from abuse and neglect.

Oklahoma ranks in the bottom five states in overall child vulnerability and is the worst for child-abuse deaths based on population.

I could include more statistics...like how little tax money flows to the children of this state who are in desperate need of help.  It seems our oh-so-wise legislature only wants to take over responsibility for your choices about abortion...they don't give a dam_ about what happens to the actual children who find themselves born into hideous circumstances.  

But who knows better?  The woman (or girl), who may be living with poverty, domestic violence, sexual abuse, drug addiction...or the prosperous white man in the suit sitting in the OK Senate?  

Instead of forcing the woman (or pregnant 12 year old) to view a picture of the fetus, the doctors should be required to hand her a picture of her Senator with name, cell phone number and address...so she knows exactly where to go for help with the sh_t hits the fan.

Nice attempt at trying to put a noble face on abortion.    The facts from countless studies are that most abortions are performed (90%+) for convenience, or effectively as alternative birth control.  Period.

At least be honest and cut the horse crap hyperbole.


Ed W

quote:


At least be honest and cut the horse crap hyperbole.






Yes, let's.  Since the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was legal, various states and pressure groups have tried to place barriers between women and their right to abortion.  Suppose these increasingly onerous restrictions succeed and it becomes almost impossible to obtain the legal medical procedure.  What then?

We'd return to the pre Roe v Wade days when women of means were able to obtain abortions simply by traveling somewhere it's legal.  Meanwhile, the poor would have to resort to back alley 'coat hanger' abortions.
Ed

May you live in interesting times.

iplaw

#65
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
Yes, let's.  Since the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was legal, various states and pressure groups have tried to place barriers between women and their right to abortion.  Suppose these increasingly onerous restrictions succeed and it becomes almost impossible to obtain the legal medical procedure.  What then?


Okay, I'll follow your deflection and refusal to accept well established statistics and respond to this tripe instead.

Are you attempting to limit the free speech of anti-abortion groups?  If they're acting within the law they have every right to speak out and protest abortions, which is their Constitutional right.

Or are you attempting to tell us that laws can't be challenged?  Just because a law exists one day doesn't mean it's forever set in stone.  There is no inalienable right to an abortion in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, therefore it's a jurisprudential creation that can be challenged.

quote:

We'd return to the pre Roe v Wade days when women of means were able to obtain abortions simply by traveling somewhere it's legal.  Meanwhile, the poor would have to resort to back alley 'coat hanger' abortions.


I'd suggest that if you want to cut down on the hyperbole you don't inject more into the conversation.

This bill isn't attempting to outlawing abortions.  No one is going to get a "coat hanger" abortion because they looked at an ultrasound.


Ed W

quote:
Originally posted by iplaw


This bill isn't attempting to outlawing abortions.  No one is going to get a "coat hanger" abortion because they looked at an ultrasound.




My point is that this law is an attempt to place onerous restrictions on abortion, not to outlaw it, and if this one is successful in that it survives a court challenge, I think we can expect further restrictions.  

But what if abortion were outlawed?  What if the Supreme Court revisited Roe v Wade and overturned it?  If killing the unborn is an immoral act, isn't criminalizing women who seek abortions equally immoral?  If there are no small sins, there's only sin, then this choice offers an obvious dilemma.

We've discussed a wide variety of issues on this forum, including in-fill, eminent domain, and property rights.  But when it comes to our most closely held property - our own bodies - the state sees fit to step in and tell us what we can and cannot do with them.  Freedom of choice by implication requires the freedom to make poor choices.  And for some of us, it's particularly galling to have the power and authority of the state enforcing some group's religious beliefs.  

If the Bill of Rights is about the rights of one man (or one woman, for that matter) rather than majorities, then statistics are irrelevant.  Majority beliefs are irrelevant.  
Ed

May you live in interesting times.

iplaw

#67
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
My point is that this law is an attempt to place onerous restrictions on abortion, not to outlaw it, and if this one is successful in that it survives a court challenge, I think we can expect further restrictions.  

But these processes (protests and legal challenges) are perfectly legal until and unless adjudicated to be unconstitutional.  The same processes that allowed Roe v Wade to come to fruition are the same processes that are allowing people to challenge that law.  There are no sacred immutable laws other than those guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and I hate to break it to you, there is not Constitutional "right" to an abortion.

quote:

But what if abortion were outlawed?  What if the Supreme Court revisited Roe v Wade and overturned it?  If killing the unborn is an immoral act, isn't criminalizing women who seek abortions equally immoral?  If there are no small sins, there's only sin, then this choice offers an obvious dilemma.

I don't really see where you're going with this...

quote:

We've discussed a wide variety of issues on this forum, including in-fill, eminent domain, and property rights.  But when it comes to our most closely held property - our own bodies - the state sees fit to step in and tell us what we can and cannot do with them.  Freedom of choice by implication requires the freedom to make poor choices.  And for some of us, it's particularly galling to have the power and authority of the state enforcing some group's religious beliefs.  

The anti-abortion movement is NOT a religious movement.  A good majority of religious people are anti-abortion, but I can direct you to forums where atheists are arguing against abortion as well. (Check out the James Randi forums where atheists share a variety of opinions about abortion)

I am an atheist and I think abortion is immoral

Even more interesting is that in countries like the UK where abortion is perfectly legal, there's a drastic shortage of doctors who will perform the procedure now.  Doctors are taking a stand an refusing to perform the procedure as they feel it's a violation of their oath.

Also, I half-heartedly agree with your more libertine stance on freedoms and choices, but when your freedom intersects and interferes with the life/freedom/happiness of another person the government (which is we the people) has every right to step in as a moderator.

quote:

If the Bill of Rights is about the rights of one man (or one woman, for that matter) rather than majorities, then statistics are irrelevant.  Majority beliefs are irrelevant.  

Again, there is no "right" to an abortion in the Bill of Rights, it's a creation of the modern judicial system.  Whether that this piece of jurisprudence can or will be overturned by SCOTUS is another discussion all together.

I can tell you though if it is ever overturned, it will be because of scientific and medical knowledge not available at the time Roe v Wade was decided.  In the original decision, the question of viability was never decided.  The boundaries of viable life are getting pushed back further and further as neonatal medicine advances and that will no doubt influence the debate heavily.

Ed W

Naturally, I differ with the above.  The right-to-life movement is largely composed of religious groups and a few convenient atheists.  They revealed their anti-science/anti-medicine approach to our legal system in the Terri Schiavo case.  Politicians used it to pander to the religious right, just as they do with the right-to-life issue.  You've said we should be looking at statistics, hard facts and figures, yet when it comes to informed medical opinion, the right-to-life advocates prefer ignorance.
Ed

May you live in interesting times.

guido911

quote:
Originally posted by Ed W

Naturally, I differ with the above.  The right-to-life movement is largely composed of religious groups and a few convenient atheists.  They revealed their anti-science/anti-medicine approach to our legal system in the Terri Schiavo case.  Politicians used it to pander to the religious right, just as they do with the right-to-life issue.  You've said we should be looking at statistics, hard facts and figures, yet when it comes to informed medical opinion, the right-to-life advocates prefer ignorance.



So physicians, who have informed medical opinions, that are "right-to-life advocates" are ignorant? I will need to pass that tidbit of lunacy around the circle I run in.
Someone get Hoss a pacifier.

iplaw

#70
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W

Naturally, I differ with the above.  The right-to-life movement is largely composed of religious groups and a few convenient atheists.  

Do you have any evidence to back up this statement?

quote:

They revealed their anti-science/anti-medicine approach to our legal system in the Terri Schiavo case.  Politicians used it to pander to the religious right, just as they do with the right-to-life issue.  You've said we should be looking at statistics, hard facts and figures, yet when it comes to informed medical opinion, the right-to-life advocates prefer ignorance.

What statistics, hard facts and figures are you referring to? I'm open to reading anything you have to provide.  What informed medical opinions am I ignoring, and to what part of this debate do they apply?  

iplaw

quote:
Originally posted by guido911

quote:
Originally posted by Ed W

Naturally, I differ with the above.  The right-to-life movement is largely composed of religious groups and a few convenient atheists.  They revealed their anti-science/anti-medicine approach to our legal system in the Terri Schiavo case.  Politicians used it to pander to the religious right, just as they do with the right-to-life issue.  You've said we should be looking at statistics, hard facts and figures, yet when it comes to informed medical opinion, the right-to-life advocates prefer ignorance.



So physicians, who have informed medical opinions, that are "right-to-life advocates" are ignorant? I will need to pass that tidbit of lunacy around the circle I run in.

Let me translate:  You don't agree with me, so clearly you're ignorant or uninformed.

jamesrage

quote:
Originally posted by Ed W



But what if abortion were outlawed?  What if the Supreme Court revisited Roe v Wade and overturned it?  If killing the unborn is an immoral act, isn't criminalizing women who seek abortions equally immoral?

No because the idea behind criminalizing such a act is to prevent killing the unborn children.



quote:
If there are no small sins, there's only sin, then this choice offers an obvious dilemma.


Society puts a value system on sin.Thats why the punishments vary from a measly fines all the way the to the death penalty. It doesn't make sense to have the same punishment for all crimes.


quote:
But when it comes to our most closely held property - our own bodies - the state sees fit to step in and tell us what we can and cannot do with them.


Your body stops being just your body when you have another human being inside it.


quote:
Freedom of choice by implication requires the freedom to make poor choices.


Can you show what constitutional amendment guarantees this right?


quote:

And for some of us, it's particularly galling to have the power and authority of the state enforcing some group's religious beliefs.

States enforce moral beliefs all the time,Stealing,murder,lying in a court of law and other laws are legislated moral beliefs.



___________________________________________________________________________
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those

guido911

Jamesrage "Your body stops being just your body when you have another human being inside it."

Perhaps the best statement in this thread. Well said.
Someone get Hoss a pacifier.

mr.jaynes

quote:
Originally posted by guido911

Well, I think its absolutely barbaric to rip apart an unborn child who is completely innocent. In my opinion, such reeks of murder.



Well, as long as you are not one of those creepy dudes that hangs out around the clinics and going into histrionics, then you're ok.