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

[FloatingFatMan]

54 minutes ago, ThaCrip said:

That's the truth.

No, that's YOUR truth, given to you by the writings of some farmer's imaginary friend 2000 or so years ago.  If it happened today, they'd be put in a nice soft room.  

 

You're entitled to believe what you like, but you don't get to call it the truth and you don't get to make others abide by your truth.

[restroom]

Without reading all the other posts, my personal view, which is likely to be unpopular I'm sure is this:

 

Today people are probably more promiscuous than ever before, so, accidents DO happen. If someone does get pregnant accidently and feels they are not ready or in a position to have the child, then they should be allowed to have the option to terminate. However, there should be other consequences to this. Educational programs they should be made to attend etc. and even strict fines for repeat offenders. The money made can go to helping those who struggle to conceive.

 

In my mind, if you disallow people to abort, then you will end up with unruly people running around in future generations, as their own parents where not in a position to actually parent them properly themselves. It becomes a vicious cycle.

[DeadEndAccount]

3 hours ago, DocM said:

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/

Surprising - oh well, they get what they deserve either way.

 

14 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.

Same thing happened when I was doing some relief work at another store around 80km from where I live - one girl has had 5 abortions: does she use the pill? nope, makes her bloated and feel fat. Does her boyfriend use a condom? nope, doesn't like the feel of latex. So basically as a person living in a single payer health system I'm subsidising that idiot's reckless behaviour. Personally I don't give two hoots if someone is getting an abortion for what ever reason but I do have a major problem I'm the one subsidising the result of really stupid life choices. Really, if I was a woman I'd be petrified about getting pregnant and having my life destroyed - if I was going to have sex I'd not only be on the pill but also insisting that my lover was using a condom to protect me from STD's.

[FloatingFatMan]

1 hour ago, Mr Nom Nom's said:

Really, if I was a woman I'd be petrified about getting pregnant and having my life destroyed

Jeez dude. Having a baby does not "destroy" your life! I have 2 kids, and they're the most wonderful things that ever happened to me after meeting my partner! Get a little perspective please.

[DeadEndAccount]

2 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Jeez dude. Having a baby does not "destroy" your life! I have 2 kids, and they're the most wonderful things that ever happened to me after meeting my partner! Get a little perspective please.

If you're not in a financial position to be able to support those kids the yes, it can destroy your life.

[FloatingFatMan]

1 minute ago, Mr Nom Nom's said:

If you're not in a financial position to be able to support those kids the yes, it can destroy your life.

No, it doesn't. It may make your future difficult, but in no way does it "destroy" your life.

[restroom]

21 minutes ago, Mr Nom Nom's said:

If you're not in a financial position to be able to support those kids the yes, it can destroy your life.

This is exactly how I see it. Not just financially though, but also other personal factors. If your not mentally ready or have other live events that need to take precedent, then absolutely you should be given the option to terminate.

 

However, if you continually keep getting yourself pregnant and wanting to abort, there has to be strict penalties, including jail time for absolute pee taking.

 

18 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

No, it doesn't. It may make your future difficult, but in no way does it "destroy" your life.

I don't agree that it would destroy a life, but it would change it dramatically. If your not at a point in your life where you are stable enough to parent a child, then you should have the option to terminate.

[FloatingFatMan]

Just now, restroom said:

I don't agree that it would destroy a life, but it would change it dramatically. If your not at a point in your life where you are stable enough to parent a child, then you should have the option to terminate.

Adoption.

[DeadEndAccount]

41 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

No, it doesn't. It may make your future difficult, but in no way does it "destroy" your life.

All your hopes, dreams and aspirations for the future have now been destroyed - from that moment onwards you have no life because your life now revolves around taking care of another life. So yes, your life has been destroyed because you are no longer able to fulfil your life but hope that with enough denial that maybe you can find meaning and purpose in something you never wanted in the first place in much the same way that a person with cancer tries to console themselves about God putting them on a new path and it is a new test of faith that they need to preserver through. Denying reality doesn't make a calamity magically disappear or transform into a 'blessing' no matter how much you may want to deny the obviousness of what is standing before you.

[FloatingFatMan]

Just now, Mr Nom Nom's said:

All your hopes, dreams and aspirations for the future have now been destroyed - from that moment onwards you have no life because your life now revolves around taking care of another life. So yes, your life has been destroyed because you are no longer able to fulfil your life but hope that with enough denial that maybe you can find meaning and purpose in something you never wanted in the first place in much the same way that a person with cancer tries to console themselves about God putting them on a new path and it is a new test of faith that they need to preserver through.

I'm a parent. You are completely, utterly, categorically and unalterably, wrong.

[restroom]

6 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Adoption.

I see adoption as something that can should be used as a last resort. I.E. someone wanted and had a child, but something happens and they no longer want or are unable to adequately look after the child, so send them for adoption. Why would you force someone to have a child when they don't want, then disrupt that childs life by having it adopted? My friend turned to drugs and eventually killed himself once her found out he was adopted...

[restroom]

3 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

I'm a parent. You are completely, utterly, categorically and unalterably, wrong.

I'm a parent too, but I kind of agree with him. Some people plan their lives out and don't want children involved in that equation. Just because it turned out ok for you, doesn't mean it would for everyone. If someone really didn't want that child, they could end up resentful toward it and in the long run then damage that child, who will go on to have children of their own and may pass that resentment along the line (may pass, not a guarantee).

 

People should be given the option, if that option is available, but should also face consequences, particularly If they abuse that system. Essentially, if someone continually falls pregnant and getting abortions, then eventually the option should be removed for them or essentially a form of sterilization.

 

Likewise, if a male keeps having children with different women and cant afford to pay for them or give them ALL a good upbringing, then I'm all for sterilization of that person too.

[+Warwagon MVC]

3 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

I'm a parent. You are completely, utterly, categorically and unalterably, wrong.

I wouldn't say he's wrong. I've known a couple of girls in the last few years. 1 had kids and every thing we did had to revolve around the kids. She could NEVER do ANYTHING at the spare of the moment. Can she come over? Gotta bring the kids. Can we go for a walk? Gotta bring the kids. Sure she could get a baby sitter but there again, she wasn't financially sound.

 

The other girl had no kids. She could come up and do stuff on a whim.

[FloatingFatMan]

Just now, warwagon said:

I wouldn't say he's wrong. I've known a couple of girls in the last few years. 1 had kids and every thing we did had to revolve around the kids. Can she come over? Gotta bring the kids. Sure she could get a baby sitter but there again, she wasn't financially sound.

 

The other girl had no kids. She could come up and do stuff on a whim.

Oh noes, she had to plan stuff!! Her life is destroyed!!

 

(Yes, that IS sarcasm!  )

 

[+Warwagon MVC]

2 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Oh noes, she had to plan stuff!! Her life is destroyed!!

 

(Yes, that IS sarcasm!  )

 

The other one, who was free to do stuff on a whim was really refreshing.

 

I don't want kids, I've never wanted kids as long as I can remember. So Last year... actually more than a year, last May, I went and got fixed. No Natural kids for this guy!

[FloatingFatMan]

Just now, warwagon said:

The other one, who was free to do stuff on a whim was really refreshing.

 

I don't want kids, I've never wanted kids as long as I can remember. So went and got fixed last year. No Natural kids for this guy!

That's fine for you, but the point i'm making here is that having a child does not "destroy" your life, at all. Sure, you have to make some changes, maybe some sacrifices, and plan more, but destroyed? That's nothing but ridiculous hyperbole.  If anything, kids massively enrich your life and make such changes well worth it.

 

My sister has 5 kids and no partner, she managed to still train as a nurse, get  a home, and have a good life. 

[xrobwx71]

17 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

So at what point do mental and physical disabilities allow you to decide that someone else's potential life is not worth living? This is the problem, it's an ethics and morals discussion. But medically there's no harm in giving birth to that child. Are we like the Spartans now? Throwing our newborns off cliffs because they don't meet the requirements for a "good life"? Where do we draw this line?

Your anecdote, while moving, is irrelevant to policy. We cannot create policy on the minority of cases out there. The thing is, prior to birth was it absolutely known the number of complications the child would have? Was it predicted they would only live under two years? What about children who were, before or even upon birth given only a few years to live but then lived to be in their 20's and 30's? This is why such anecdotes aren't meaningful. For every case you can bring forward where limited or illegal abortions were a detriment I can name a scenario where such predictions were completely wrong and an abortion in those scenarios would have prevented that life from even having a chance.

So please, tell me. At what point do we have a right to choose whether or not someone's life is worth living for them? They aren't us, and you cannot possibly think you have the ability to judge whether or not the child got anything out of the short life she lived. It may seem a shame and a waste to you, but what about the child? If you had to choose between a shot at even some existence and oblivion what would you choose (and why are you making that choice for someone else, regardless of whether or not they are a person at the time of the decision)?

There are way too many variables. My boss for instance. His son, diagnosed Autistic. The doctors advised to institutionalise him as he would never speak, interact with others, or otherwise have any normal life. The parents did not take the expert medical advice and this, now 23 year old, graduated high school with honors, drives a car, graduated college, has a teaching job dealing with children with Autism. 

[+Warwagon MVC]

6 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

That's fine for you, but the point i'm making here is that having a child does not "destroy" your life, at all. Sure, you have to make some changes, maybe some sacrifices, and plan more, but destroyed? That's nothing but ridiculous hyperbole.  If anything, kids massively enrich your life and make such changes well worth it.

 

My sister has 5 kids and no partner, she managed to still train as a nurse, get  a home, and have a good life. 

Yes, I think Destroy is a bit too dramatic. Would it be safe to say while it doesn't destroy it does throw a giant curve ball? Once people have kids they go on and on about how they couldn't imagine life without them. Well of course. But you also can't miss what you haven't had.

 

 

[restroom]

42 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

That's fine for you, but the point i'm making here is that having a child does not "destroy" your life, at all. Sure, you have to make some changes, maybe some sacrifices, and plan more, but destroyed? That's nothing but ridiculous hyperbole.  If anything, kids massively enrich your life and make such changes well worth it.

 

My sister has 5 kids and no partner, she managed to still train as a nurse, get  a home, and have a good life. 

To take a quote that you used earlier... It does not destroy YOUR life. Being you in particular. Different people with different circumstances, it may well destroy their life... or at least their life as they know it.

[FloatingFatMan]

8 minutes ago, restroom said:

To take a quote that you used earlier... It does not destroy YOUR life. Being you in particular. Different people with different circumstances, it may well destroy their life... or at least their life as they know it.

Changed is not destroyed. If their life is "destroyed", they're dead, and kids don't do that! It just brings about a large change to their lives, that's all.  Enough with the stupid hyperbole.

[restroom]

3 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Changed is not destroyed. If their life is "destroyed", they're dead, and kids don't do that! It just brings about a large change to their lives, that's all.  Enough with the stupid hyperbole.

Sorry, but I disagree. If it destroys (as it can) your career then it certainly hasn't been of benefit to you and your not of benefit to the child by bringing it in to the world at that point in your life. If the person building a career was to wait to be more stable and capable, then surely that's better than having a child too soon.

 

I'm sorry, but you appear to be simply taking the word destroyed and making it out to be something which you know non of us meant, because you are becoming frustrated with our counter argument.

 

Perhaps "destroying their livelihood, career prospects" may better suite your requirement?

[DefyTheOutcome]

18 hours 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.

This, so much this for freedom from religion

 

 

9 hours ago, DocM said:

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

If the many in the medical professions includes you, a retired gyn-ob named Ron Paul and a retired ophthalmologist named Rand Paul, that does not qualify as many in the medical professions

Also, I would like to see the medical reasons on why the abortion procedures should be restricted, not the personal opinions or the blabber evnagelicals repeat ad nauseam.

Abortions are one of the safest medical procedure to date.

 

 

9 hours ago, chrisj1968 said:

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

And why should it be a problem?

 

 

8 hours ago, ThaCrip said:

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

Wrong country, the theocracy where white bearded men are interpreting a holy book to meet their own goal is Saudi Arabia.

 

 

43 minutes ago, xrobwx said:

There are way too many variables. My boss for instance. His son, diagnosed Autistic. The doctors advised to institutionalise him as he would never speak, interact with others, or otherwise have any normal life. The parents did not take the expert medical advice and this, now 23 year old, graduated high school with honors, drives a car, graduated college, has a teaching job dealing with children with Autism. 

There is an entire specturm of Autisms and there have been leaps in children care and education since the 90s that allowed this kid to have a life.

 

 

[FloatingFatMan]

6 minutes ago, restroom said:

I'm sorry, but you appear to be simply taking the word destroyed and making it out to be something which you know non of us meant, because you are becoming frustrated with our counter argument.

Then perhaps you need to read a dictionary and select the correct words to describe your arguments, instead of going for the dumb hyperbole?

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Children don't destroy the lives of their parents.

 

They give a new meaning to them.

[COKid]

Interesting discussion. I respect both sides. For me, I can't judge anyone else's life situation. Also, as a male, I will never know what it's like to be pregnant. I will say that if a woman really wants to abort her pregnancy, she will. If their are safe places to do that, great. Otherwise, we can go back to the coathanger days. The end result will be the same. I would also hazard a guess that those of you who say that these women should simply carry a baby to term and then give it up for adoption are predominantly men.