SB 1878 - Abortion Bill

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

I just want someone to answer my questions.  I have now had THREE separate people allege that we're just ill informed, or ignoring science, or avoiding information, and on and on, without providing me with that information when I have repeatedly asked them to provide it.

I have now asked on three separate occasions for any information, statistic or scientific information that I'm apparently unaware of.

Maybe I missed it?

You have missed nothing. Your problem is that you expected someone to engage you in an argument regarding facts and statistics on this issue. Why? It is easier to shout stupid slogans.

The pro-abortion crowd will never engage in debate the fact that the overwhelming majority of abortions are about convenience; not about protecting the health of a woman, or in response to incest and rape. It's about the slippery slope. Pro-abortion folks are more concerned about the slightest intrusion into their purported "right" to an abortion that they are willing to completely ignore what abortion is really about: the death of a grown up fetus (credit to mrhaskell).

[cannon_fodder]

I'd like to assert that I have refrained from spouting slogans and have presented my opinion very carefully, including as many facts as were pertinent.  While I can't claim to be a member of the "pro-abortion crowd" any more than I am a member of the "pro-racial slurs" crowd - by virtue of the fact that I support the freedom of speech protection for the latter, I imagine I am of the ilk you refer.

I looked over the thread trying to ascertain what information IP was looking for, but was unable to find exactly what he wanted.  Seeing how I was somewhat removed from that part of the discussion, I did not inquire.  

If, for some, my position has not been clear or I have "ignored what abortion is really about" I would be happy to restate my position.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I'd like to assert that I have refrained from spouting slogans and have presented my opinion very carefully, including as many facts as were pertinent.  While I can't claim to be a member of the "pro-abortion crowd" any more than I am a member of the "pro-racial slurs" crowd - by virtue of the fact that I support the freedom of speech protection for the latter, I imagine I am of the ilk you refer.

I looked over the thread trying to ascertain what information IP was looking for, but was unable to find exactly what he wanted.  Seeing how I was somewhat removed from that part of the discussion, I did not inquire.  

If, for some, my position has not been clear or I have "ignored what abortion is really about" I would be happy to restate my position.

Is that CF's arrogance peeking out again? Everything ain't about ya. []

I know what your position is and I think you know the folks I was referring to and they are not necessarily posters in this thread. I was really speaking to the pro-abortion group as a whole.

[cannon_fodder]

I thought the song was about me.

No, actually you used broad terms - so I wanted to assert that some people on both sides stated their positions clearly.  It is also worth pointing out that many anti-choice (see what I did there people refuse to discuss the issue by shouting baby killer and making circular arguments.   It is a passionate issue, to many people can not speak intelligently about passionate issues.

[iplaw]

CF:  I have had three different people in this thread tell me that I'm ignoring or ignorant of: facts, valid science or statistics regarding abortion.  You weren't one of them, so don't be concerned.  You actually back up what you say if asked to do so.

I have asked these people to provide me with whatever information I may be ignoring or uninformed of, and I never received a response.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

It is also worth pointing out that many anti-choice (see what I did there

Why, yes I did.

[cannon_fodder]

An Oklahoma County District Judge today entered a permanent injunction barring the enforcement of this law:

  08-17-2009         CTFREE        -               60868138        Aug 18 2009 3:34:32:653PM       -      $ 0.00
   JUDGE V.ROBERTSON:
DEFT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT-MOOT
PLTF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT- SUSTAINED IN PART
PLTF'S MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT- MOOT
COURT ISSUED DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
PERMANATE INJUNCTION ENTERED

DOCKET SHEET

The actual order has not been posted, so I do not know the particulars.  It was to go into effect Nov. 1 and was temporarily prevented from going into effect.   Now it would appear it will not go into effect until this ruling is reviewed.

Again, pending a report from someone who was there or the actual order being posted.

[Moderator]

I must not have notice it before, but this thread belongs in POLITICS, it has been moved accordingly.

May as well use this chance to remind people to remain civil . . .

- Moderator

[Townsend]

May as well use this chance to remind people to remain civil . . .
- Moderator

You giving odds?

[pmcalk]

TulsaWorld article here:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090818_11_0_OKLAHO116418

Interesting grounds for throwing out the law--the law didn't deal with a single subject matter.  Since they didn't even address other issues, I'm betting we see this bill again.

[Conan71]

TulsaWorld article here:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090818_11_0_OKLAHO116418

Interesting grounds for throwing out the law--the law didn't deal with a single subject matter.  Since they didn't even address other issues, I'm betting we see this bill again.

I thought that was rather clever.

[Townsend]

TulsaWorld article here:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090818_11_0_OKLAHO116418

Interesting grounds for throwing out the law--the law didn't deal with a single subject matter.  Since they didn't even address other issues, I'm betting we see this bill again.

Wasn't there a lawsuit about money that was supposed to be split between OKC and Tulsa for the same reason?

[cannon_fodder]

Townsend:  yes, yes there was.  But the solution in that case was to throw out the portion of the bill that applied to Tulsa and send the money to OKC.  Strange how that works . . .

In reality I have to imagine this elected official spent a ton of time trying to find a way to avoid making a ruling on the issue.

[Townsend]

And onto the higher court.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20090819_298_0_OLHMIY994719

I love that we continue to throw money at this.

So far, the state has spent about $67,000 defending the measure, attorney general's spokesman Charlie Price said.

[RecycleMichael]

This law should have been overturned.

How can the government make a person get an unneccessary medical procedure?

I don't want my tax dollars to keep fighting this.