Oklahoma Legislature passes bill that would criminalizing abortion procedures except to save a mother's life.

[PGHammer]

2 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

It has not and never will be overturned. It has been the law of the land for way too long to stop it now. Just think what the poverty level would be now without it??

Gary7 - that is, in and of itself - little better.  Yes; the issue is fractious; however, there are folks - on both sides - that still seek that un-alterable Final Decision, simply because they are unable - or unwilling - to "let a sleeping dog lie".

[Emn1ty]

51 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

But that's my point, this law IS making that choice for someone else, and its making it blindly instead of doing the only logical thing and leaving it to the parents and the doctors; the only ones qualified to make that decision.

 

It's forcing the morals and beliefs of unqualified lawmakers onto other people, with zero consideration to the circumstances of the specific case. It's doubly wrong in Ireland, where the anti-abortion law is wholly based on the catholic religion and forced on -everyone- irrespective of their beliefs.

The reason why I am ok with such a law is because I don't believe this is a choice that should be made by anyone other than a doctor who believes it's medically necessary, or a court. Abortions are not necessary in any way, shape or form (sans the exceptions I've already provided). You don't want the child, then put it up for adoption. People seem to paint this extremely black and white, as if the inability to abort your child suddenly removes you of all choices you have regarding that child. It doesn't.

There is a place and a time for abortion, and legally defining that in my personal opinion is perfectly valid. Just as many medical procedures aren't just handed out for any old reason, neither should abortions. Unless medically necessary or rape is involved I personally believe an abortion has no ethical or moral ground to stand on, and also has little practical value (when you consider moral and ethical discussion). You can argue all you want that you are "saving them from a terrible life", but you don't actually know that.

[Stoffel]

2 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

The reason why I am ok with such a law is because I don't believe this is a choice that should be made by anyone other than a doctor who believes it's medically necessary, or a court. Abortions are not necessary in any way, shape or form (sans the exceptions I've already provided). You don't want the child, then put it up for adoption. People seem to paint this extremely black and white, as if the inability to abort your child suddenly removes you of all choices you have regarding that child. It doesn't.

There is a place and a time for abortion, and legally defining that in my personal opinion is perfectly valid. Just as many medical procedures aren't just handed out for any old reason, neither should abortions. Unless medically necessary or rape is involved I personally believe an abortion has no ethical or moral ground to stand on, and also has little practical value (when you consider moral and ethical discussion). You can argue all you want that you are "saving them from a terrible life", but you don't actually know that.

Abortion is a very private issue, and only 2 people should be involved in that decision, the doctor and the woman thinking about the abortion.

Nobody else should be sticking their noses in it!

[FloatingFatMan]

Just now, Emn1ty said:

or rape is involved

Then why give rape a special dispensation?  It's not the baby's fault its the result of a violent attack, is it?  By your own logic, as the mother wouldn't normally be at risk to deliver, it could easily be adopted out. What matters the woman's state of mind if made to carry it to term? Seeing as you're ignoring the mental health of a couple with a seriously impaired baby, why consider a rape victims?

 

You're trying to apply broad rules to cases where that's just not possible. The individual case situation must always be considered.

[FloatingFatMan]

1 minute ago, Stoffel said:

Abortion is a very private issue, and only 2 people should be involved in that decision, the doctor and the woman thinking about the abortion.

Nobody else should be sticking their noses in it!

To be fair, the father should have some input too.

[Emn1ty]

11 minutes ago, Stoffel said:

Abortion is a very private issue, and only 2 people should be involved in that decision, the doctor and the woman thinking about the abortion.

Nobody else should be sticking their noses in it!

I could care less about it being private, a regulation doesn't breech privacy in this case. It's red tape, not a government official standing in the room with you while you discuss it. Do you think mental health doctors should report potentially violent and homicidal behavior to local authorities, or is that not a good idea because mental health is a "private" issue? Be it private or not, there are some standards we need to set. Or is it just the cost of doing business?

 

9 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Then why give rape a special dispensation?  It's not the baby's fault its the result of a violent attack, is it?  By your own logic, as the mother wouldn't normally be at risk to deliver, it could easily be adopted out. What matters the woman's state of mind if made to carry it to term? Seeing as you're ignoring the mental health of a couple with a seriously impaired baby, why consider a rape victims?

 

You're trying to apply broad rules to cases where that's just not possible. The individual case situation must always be considered.

Rape is a special dispensation because it is something outside your control. Rape is the one scenario where you have been given something against your will, while any other circumstance is something you had complete control over. You didn't take all the precautions, don't rely on a procedure that wouldn't have been necessary to begin with.

Yes, I am painting a broad brush, but that's how policy works. You have to take into consideration the general, while leaving room for the specific. As I said, there should always be room for special circumstances but I don't think this issue should be left up to almost entirely the mother as it presently is. If people aren't going to take the proper precautions when it comes to sexual encounters, that's their problem. Privacy has nothing to do with that, and we shouldn't foster such thinking. When I have more time, I will take a look into if there's any numbers on the reasons people get abortions and see what the most common reasons are (and whether or not this particular law would affect them and if they do, whether or not that reason really justifies such an action).

[FloatingFatMan]

4 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

If people aren't going to take the proper precautions when it comes to sexual encounters, that's their problem.

Just to clarify, I don't believe an abortion should generally be allowed unless there is a medical reason for it. As you say, adoption is available so personal choice shouldn't be a factor, just medical indication.

 

[Emn1ty]

Just now, FloatingFatMan said:

Just to clarify, I don't believe an abortion should generally be allowed unless their is a medical reason for it. As you say, adoption is available so personal choice shouldn't be a factor, just medical indication.

 

Right, which perhaps this bill is a bit heavy handed but to me it does have ground. It's a medical decision, it should have medical precedent beyond just, "I wasn't planning to have a kid."

[Stoffel]

16 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

To be fair, the father should have some input too.

Sure, i'll give you that one

[Stoffel]

12 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

I could care less about it being private, a regulation doesn't breech privacy in this case. It's red tape, not a government official standing in the room with you while you discuss it. Do you think mental health doctors should report potentially violent and homicidal behavior to local authorities, or is that not a good idea because mental health is a "private" issue? Be it private or not, there are some standards we need to set. Or is it just the cost of doing business?

 

You are comparing two completely different things here!

A woman having an abortion has no effect on anyone other than the woman.

Not reporting somebody with potentially violent and homicidal behavior can have a serious impact on the well being of others.

 

They have set a standard years ago with Roe vs Wade, so why is it that some people want to change the law? And why is it always bible thumpers?

[Ravensky]

2 hours ago, shockz said:

It's like we're traveling backwards in time.

You mean back to where it should have stayed...

[Stoffel]

17 minutes ago, Ravensky said:

You mean back to where it should have stayed...

Back in the good old days where black people had no rights, women weren't allowed to vote and the white man was high and mighty?

Those good old days you mean?!?

[Noir Angel]

Gotta love the predictably backwards nature of conservatives.

[Emn1ty]

29 minutes ago, Stoffel said:

You are comparing two completely different things here!

A woman having an abortion has no effect on anyone other than the woman.

Not reporting somebody with potentially violent and homicidal behavior can have a serious impact on the well being of others.

 

They have set a standard years ago with Roe vs Wade, so why is it that some people want to change the law? And why is it always bible thumpers?

And possibly the father, and her family as well the child to be. Children affect more than just the woman carrying them (something people also seem to ignore). Why is suicide looked down on when it "doesn't affect anyone other than the person who did it"? It's their choice, right? Their body? Their life? This logic has many holes.

 

And if you think the opposition is just "bible thumpers", you're ignoring the moral quandary would still exist without religion.

[Stoffel]

1 minute ago, Emn1ty said:

And possibly the father, and her family as well the child to be. Children affect more than just the woman carrying them (something people also seem to ignore). Why is suicide looked down on when it "doesn't affect anyone other than the person who did it"? It's their choice, right? Their body? Their life? This logic has many holes.

 

What child/children are you talking about? If the woman chooses to abort there are no children affected. Who said anything about looking down on suicide? Why do you always come up with comparisons that make no sense what so ever?

As far as I know there is no law against suicide so it looks like people have less issues with that than abortion.

I am a big fan of assisted suicide like it exists in the Netherlands

[ramesees]

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

Rape is a special dispensation because it is something outside your control. 

 

 

You know what else is outside of your control ?

 

How the genes that are passed on from the mother and father to create the baby and the potential for diseases and disabilities to occur.

 

One child you have could be perfectly healthy and the next one could be disabled or otherwise impaired.

[Emn1ty]

51 minutes ago, Stoffel said:

 

What child/children are you talking about? If the woman chooses to abort there are no children affected. Who said anything about looking down on suicide? Why do you always come up with comparisons that make no sense what so ever?

As far as I know there is no law against suicide so it looks like people have less issues with that than abortion.

I am a big fan of assisted suicide like it exists in the Netherlands

There is no law because there's no way to punish someone who is dead. But if suicide was legally accepted, euthanasia wouldn't be illegal in the US. But it is. And there is a potential child affected (emphasis so you understand the context).

 

The point is, an abortion affects more than just the mother. Do you dispute that?

 

38 minutes ago, ramesees said:

You know what else is outside of your control ?

 

How the genes that are passed on from the mother and father to create the baby and the potential for diseases and disabilities to occur.

 

One child you have could be perfectly healthy and the next one could be disabled or otherwise impaired.

And thus why I said if there's a legitimate medical reason for a fetus to be aborted, then by all means. This is for the doctor to decide, not the woman having the child. There are definitely things you have control over and things you don't, but we shouldn't be aborting children just because we were loose in our application of preventative measures or because the kid has a mental illness or a physical deformation. This kind of thought process reminds me distinctly of eugenics, but is "justified" by the moral excuse of "well they aren't a real person yet.". If that makes things "ok" for you, then I guess that's your prerogative. But personally I find it quite unnecessary and frankly presumptuous to choose to snuff out a potential life for whatever trivial reason you can come up with, especially for reasons that you couldn't possibly know to be the case before they come to pass.

[Morisato]

http://www.wikihow.com/Put-a-Child-up-for-Adoption

 

Best case scenario although if you're willing to go through all that, it's best you not get preggo in the first place. Some can't afford it so rather than deal with  the consequences and responsibility, will use the abortion method in whichever state (few and far between) that allow it. Some will even go as far as abandoning it in some street corner or on the doorsteps of a church in hopes they'll deal with the problem she created. As much as it feels good for skin on skin contact, wearing a condom is a safer bet than the pill.

[DocM]

9 hours ago, illegaloperation said:

Of cause they have to be reasonable restrictions. (i.e. no backyard abortions)

 

Banning abortions for political reasons aren't reasonable restrictions.

 

Depending on the poll,  60-65% want seriously restricted abortions, and I guarantee you that includes many in the medical professions. 

 

9 hours ago, illegaloperation said:

How about every time there's a baby that nobody wants to adopt, he/she is dropped off at your house and it is your responsibility to raise him/her on your own dime?

A baby is the easiest child to get adopted. Prospective adoptive parents stampede over each other to get inline. Its getting the older kids adopted that is hard.

 

Many US states & municipalities have laws where an unwanted child can be dropped at a fire house or medical facility, no questions asked.

[DeadEndAccount]

This is what happens when half your eligible voting population can't be bothered getting off their backside to vote in state elections - you allow the most extreme to hijack the process and end up with that sort of legislation being passed. People might want to blame the politicians who make these laws but it is the voters who put these politicians in charge in the first place just as Scott Walker was voted in by the majority of his state - if you want to get angry then don't blame Scott because he and his party were up front about what they wanted to do and if people decided to sit on and skip voting then whose fault is it?

Edited May 20, 2016 by Mr Nom Nom's

[DocM]

27 minutes ago, Mr Nom Nom's said:

This is what happens when half your eligible voting population can't be bothered getting off their backside to vote in state elections - 

In Oklahoma it wouldn't matter what the turnout is because 57% of Democrats and 68.7% overall there are pro-life. 

 

http://soonerpoll.com/oklahoma-is-a-pro-life-state/

[chrisj1968]

I can see this as a good thing. Some women use Abortion as a form of birth control.

[Shiranui]

Maybe Oklahoma should focus more on children who have actually been born:

http://www.nccp.org/profiles/OK_profile_7.html

 

[BinaryData]

12 hours ago, warwagon said:

A side from rape, there are really no reason women should be getting pregnant (knocked up) by accident. One girl I knew was having sex with a guy who she told me he never wore a condom and he never pulled out. She said, it's ok "i'm on the pill".

 

I said.. uh if you miss a pill or for some reason the pill doesn't work, I see a child in your future. She said "Don't worry about it"

 

Her child is now 8 months old

 

It really makes you wonder if these people ever took sex ed.

 

 

Frankly, I'm paranoid when it comes to this sort of thing. I don't want a kid, and I don't want an STD/STI from a chick. My brother has Chlamydia right now. He didn't wrap it, and he got more than just a one nighter.  I abide by this rule;

 

Wrap it before you Tap it.

[inactive]

Abortion is gravely wrong (i.e. mortal sin) in the eyes of God (i.e. The Holy Trinity (Father/Son(Jesus Christ)/Holy Spirit)). so outside of some rare circumstances (like doing it to save the mothers life for example), abortion is ALWAYS wrong.

 

That's the truth.

 

basically the liberals, who are pro-choice, put a persons choice higher than a persons right to life. their choice came when they choose to have sex and a child is an effect of that choice. now they should take responsibility for their choice.

 

nice to see Oklahoma trying to follow God's ways instead of society for a change