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

[Emn1ty]

3 hours ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

This, so much this for freedom from religion.

 

And why should it be a problem?

What would you deem a valid reason to get an abortion? Does there have to be any pretense other than "I don't want it." for you?

[ramesees]

4 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

What would you deem a valid reason to get an abortion? Does there have to be any pretense other than "I don't want it." for you?

I would say that the people who will be legally / financially etc. responsible for the child that will be produced should have a say in whether or not they wish to accept that responsibility if they are able to.

 

Not everyone who gets pregnant thinks that the embryo / fetus that is growing in the womb is an actual baby / person at the very early stages.

They should get to make whatever decisions they feel are appropriate as I mentioned above they are primarily responsible for the eventual child's welfare.

 

The government should not be in the business of telling people that they should have a baby or not - the potential child does not belong to the government (neither the parents but they are much more responsible). 

 

[DefyTheOutcome]

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

What would you deem a valid reason to get an abortion? Does there have to be any pretense other than "I don't want it." for you?

No, "I do not want it" is good enough for me. This is the personal choice of a woman or a couple. This is their decision with their reasons, they will have to live with the consequences of their own choice.

 

[Emn1ty]

1 hour ago, ramesees said:

I would say that the people who will be legally / financially etc. responsible for the child that will be produced should have a say in whether or not they wish to accept that responsibility if they are able to.

 

Not everyone who gets pregnant thinks that the embryo / fetus that is growing in the womb is an actual baby / person at the very early stages.

They should get to make whatever decisions they feel are appropriate as I mentioned above they are primarily responsible for the eventual child's welfare.

 

The government should not be in the business of telling people that they should have a baby or not - the potential child does not belong to the government (neither the parents but they are much more responsible). 

 

The problem with the "it's not a life" argument is that it sort of falls into a moral grey area. Why is adoption not a valid default, how come abortion must be available in the instances of a lack of willingness to care for and raise a child? If you're going to say because foster care is a terrible life to live then you've already displaced your logical assumption. In order for quality of life to be considered in a decision to abort a fetus, one must assume that they are a human being and would be able to have a "life" in the first place. But yet, it's morally okay to abort the fetus (for that reason) because it's also not a life (yet). These two concepts do not align. You can't say in one instance it's not a life therefore it's okay to destroy it then on the other base the decision on the life that non-life might have.

As long as we're willing to admit that an abortion may as well be tantamount to assisted suicide (which is illegal in the United States), or more analagous murder (because if you think an embryo will have any "life" to live you're automatically accepting that it is a life, if even not one yet).

The point is, you're making a decision for (potentially) someone else without even giving them a say in the matter. If we're okay with that, then I guess that's just the cost of doing business. But personally I don't find that morally or ethically acceptable.
 

 

9 minutes ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

No, "I do not want it" is good enough for me. This is the personal choice of a woman or a couple. This is their decision with their reasons, they will have to live with the consequences of their own choice.

I can accept this line of reasoning if you truly believe that ending a potential life is really worth one's own convenience. To me, that's the definition of selfish reasoning (not selfish as in bad, but logic which only focuses on the outcome of yourself and not others).

[Stoffel]

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

I can accept this line of reasoning if you truly believe that ending a potential life is really worth one's own convenience. To me, that's the definition of selfish reasoning (not selfish as in bad, but logic which only focuses on the outcome of yourself and not others).

You see this as ending a life, some of us don't feel the same way. If you don't see that fetus as a person/living being yet, there is no selfish reasoning at all.

[DefyTheOutcome]

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

I can accept this line of reasoning if you truly believe that ending a potential life is really worth one's own convenience. To me, that's the definition of selfish reasoning (not selfish as in bad, but logic which only focuses on the outcome of yourself and not others).

To me, this is not 'ending a potential life', this is an interuption of a pregnancy and this is not a question of convenience: the reasons of the couple or the woman to seek an abortion could be multiple and ultimately, none of my personal business. To conclude, this is their freedom from my religion.

 

[trag3dy]

23 minutes ago, Stoffel said:

You see this as ending a life, some of us don't feel the same way. If you don't see that fetus as a person/living being yet, there is no selfish reasoning at all.

He didn't say life. He said potential life.

 

13 minutes ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

To me, this is not 'ending a potential life', this is an interuption of a pregnancy and this is not a question of convenience: the reasons of the couple or the woman to seek an abortion could be multiple and ultimately, none of my personal business. To conclude, this is their freedom from my religion.

 

Two different sides of the same coin. On the one side you have a potential life being snuffed out before it's allowed to flourish. On the other you have peoples need for choice.

 

I feel like the potential for life should be held in higher regard than our own personal selfishness.

 

But then, I also feel like if you don't want kids then you shouldn't be going at it like rabbits and/or take the proper precautions, even doubling up on them.

[Emn1ty]

4 minutes ago, Stoffel said:

You see this as ending a life, some of us don't feel the same way. If you don't see that fetus as a person/living being yet, there is no selfish reasoning at all.

So, taking your own convenience over the fetus isn't selfish reasoning? How do you figure? You're considering yourself over the fetus. That's selfish by definition.
 

Quote

self·ish ˈselfiSH/ adjective (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

Again, denying a potential life for one's own convenience seems quite cold. Especially when there's a less final alternative. People have still yet to give good reason for avoiding adoption as a solution. Why is adoption not a valid choice?

 

6 minutes ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

To me, this is not 'ending a potential life', this is an interuption of a pregnancy and this is not a question of convenience: the reasons of the couple or the woman to seek an abortion could be multiple and ultimately, none of my personal business. To conclude, this is their freedom from my religion.

To me, it boils down to a potential life vs convenience. I hold a potential life in higher regard than my own convenience. That's me. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees with that moral judgement. You can also easily apply this to euthanasia, suicide, etc. Most people value life over all other things, and to me this idea of trying to define it as not a life (or even a potential life) is an effort to excuse the fact that some people would put their own convenience over the future life of a fetus.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

Vetoed - Okla. governor vetoes sweeping abortion ban bill

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/okla-governor-vetoes-sweeping-abortion-ban-bill/ar-BBti0bA?li=BBnb7Kz

[DefyTheOutcome]

7 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

Again, denying a potential life for one's own convenience seems quite cold. Especially when there's a less final alternative. People have still yet to give good reason for avoiding adoption as a solution. Why is adoption not a valid choice?

Because it is a burden on the woman? She carries a child she has expressed the desire not to have and you want her to carry it to term for the whole nine months? What if, during that time, that woman gets a psychotic phase during which she wants to kill herself because she cannot withstand being pregnant.

And what about the abortion process itself? If the adoption is arranged before birth and the newborn has birth defects or is even stillborn?

 

 

7 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

To me, it boils down to a potential life vs convenience. I hold a potential life in higher regard than my own convenience. That's me. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees with that moral judgement. You can also easily apply this to euthanasia, suicide, etc. Most people value life over all other things, and to me this idea of trying to define it as not a life (or even a potential life) is an effort to excuse the fact that some people would put their own convenience over the future life of a fetus.

What a beautiful reduction. /s

[Emn1ty]

1 minute ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

1. Because it is a burden on the woman? She carries a child she has expressed the desire not to have and you want her to carry it to term for the whole nine months? What if, during that time, that woman gets a psychotic phase during which she wants to kill herself because she cannot withstand being pregnant.

And what about the abortion process itself? If the adoption is arranged before birth and the newborn has birth defects or is even stillborn?

 

 

2. What a beautiful reduction. /s

1. How often does that actually happen? Yes, she should carry it to term. Just as if someone who gets into a car accident without insurance needs to pay out of pocket. You take the necessary steps or you deal with the consequences. This still falls firmly under convenience here. As for birth defects, that falls firmly under eugenics (you deciding that they won't have an ideal life based on criteria you deem necessary for their life to be worth living, which means you think they can have a life worth living and thus no longer view them as a non-life). As for stillborn, I do think that is valid. Because the end result will be same (assuming it's effectively a scientific guarantee that the fetus will not survive to term).

 

2. If you think the reduction invalid, you'll have to demonstrate why and not just claim it as so.

[Stoffel]

6 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

1. How often does that actually happen? Yes, she should carry it to term. Just as if someone who gets into a car accident without insurance needs to pay out of pocket. You take the necessary steps or you deal with the consequences. This still falls firmly under convenience here. As for birth defects, that falls firmly under eugenics (you deciding that they won't have an ideal life based on criteria you deem necessary for their life to be worth living, which means you think they can have a life worth living and thus no longer view them as a non-life). As for stillborn, I do think that is valid. Because the end result will be same (assuming it's effectively a scientific guarantee that the fetus will not survive to term).

 

2. If you think the reduction invalid, you'll have to demonstrate why and not just claim it as so.

Who made you the authority on abortions? Why is it that you as a man feel you can tell women how they should think and feel about their abortion?

That's what you are doing here, pushing your idea upon everybody else and hope that it gets turned into law.

If you have an issue with abortion, don't have one, otherwise let people make their own decisions!

[kalel83]

A bunch of men calming they have a right to tell a woman if she can have an abortion under specific circumstances (or any)..

 

I was ashamed over the Trump support, but this is worse.

 

Neowin has a side I am now ashamed of, and that saddens me.

[kalel83]

*Claiming

 

Would be nice if I could edit forum posts.. Tried it in Chrome and Edge and fails in both. Refreshing page does nothing..

[Emn1ty]

 

31 minutes ago, Stoffel said:

Who made you the authority on abortions? Why is it that you as a man feel you can tell women how they should think and feel about their abortion?

That's what you are doing here, pushing your idea upon everybody else and hope that it gets turned into law.

If you have an issue with abortion, don't have one, otherwise let people make their own decisions!

I don't have to be an authority to have an opinion. I also don't have to be a woman to discuss an issue that only affects women (just as I don't have to be African American to discuss African American issues, though abortions can arguably affect the father as well who just so happens to be male). These are common tools used to deflect valid conversation. I am perfectly free to express my opinion, attempting to silence me because you don't like my opinion is just an indicator that you've no counterpoint other than to attempt character assassination and make me look like some kind of evil person.

People are free to make their own decisions, just as I am free to discuss (logically) the ramifications of such decisions and whether or not it makes (objectively) ethical and moral sense to allow people to take certain actions. Unless you're saying we have absolutely no ground to dictate other's behavior or actions in any way?

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Breaking News: This bill was just vetoed by The Governor, no source yet, I heard it on TV News.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

1 hour ago, kalel83 said:

A bunch of men calming they have a right to tell a woman if she can have an abortion under specific circumstances (or any)..

 

I was ashamed over the Trump support, but this is worse.

 

Neowin has a side I am now ashamed of, and that saddens me.

You were ashamed of The Trump support and Neowin saddens you?? No body is forcing you to post here. Maybe George Soros has a Forum that you would like/s

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oklahoma-verto-abortion_us_573f7ecce4b00e09e89f2405

 

I am sad to use the above source but it was all I can find.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

33 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

Breaking News: This bill was just vetoed by The Governor, no source yet, I heard it on TV News.

 

27 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oklahoma-verto-abortion_us_573f7ecce4b00e09e89f2405

 

I am sad to use the above source but it was all I can find.

Does anyone read these threads thoroughly, the news of the veto was posted over 2 hours ago.   

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Just now, Raze said:

 

Does anyone read these threads thoroughly, the news of the veto was posted over 2 hours ago.   

OK Raze--Shoot me. All of the Trump BS got me side tracked/

[+Raze Subscriber²]

13 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

OK Raze--Shoot me. All of the Trump BS got me side tracked/

Stand still, I want this to be a clean, single shot kill.

 

Spoiler

 

 

[DefyTheOutcome]

10 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

1. How often does that actually happen?

 

Well, what happens when you put 'woman committing suicide because they are forced to have pregnancy' in Google? You find

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-el-salvador-suicide-teens-idUSKCN0IW1YI20141112

 

 

Quote

 

SAN SALVADOR (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - El Salvador's ban on abortion is driving hundreds of girls who become pregnant after being raped to commit suicide every year because they see no other option, a government official said.

Teenage pregnancy is one of the leading causes of suicide in the Central American country of 6 million people. Three out of eight maternal deaths in El Salvador are the result of suicide among pregnant girls under 19, latest government figures show.

Many of these girls have not only suffered sexual abuse at the hands of relatives, stepfathers or gang members, but they are also often silenced and prevented from seeking help by the stigma surrounding rape.

On top of that, they face the unwelcome prospect of giving birth to an unwanted baby due to El Salvador's total ban on abortion even in cases of rape, incest, a deformed fetus or when the women's life is in danger, campaigners say.

...

 

More at link

Have you ever wondered why women took extreme risks to go to back alleys before the legalization of abortion? What made them do deseperate go to black market medecine? And you want to force them to have their pregnancy and carry them to terms. How would that be done? Should they be housed in some special facilities where they are constantly monitored to ensure that they are not harming themselves or the baby? I think this would be called a prison or may be a hen house or a baby farm

It is also very patriarchal to reduce women to a mere breeding role.

 

 

10 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

As for birth defects, that falls firmly under eugenics (you deciding that they won't have an ideal life based on criteria you deem necessary for their life to be worth living, which means you think they can have a life worth living and thus no longer view them as a non-life). As for stillborn, I do think that is valid. Because the end result will be same (assuming it's effectively a scientific guarantee that the fetus will not survive to term)

My, my, my, such a big word: 'eugenics'. In two posts, the Godwin's point is going to be shattered into nothingness.

 

You speak a lot of life, not much about suffering. I am not talking about minor birth defects, I am talking about the example FloatingFatMan gave. Was that life for the baby? No, it was pain and torment.

 

 

10 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

2. If you think the reduction invalid, you'll have to demonstrate why and not just claim it as so.

You try to frame that couple or woman seeking abortions are selffish and do not want to be bothered by having and raising a child, as if it was a little annoying bump on their own road to personal confort.

 

Even if the various fathers around here have expressed their own joy of having children, it may not apply to everyone.

It is not that easy to raise a child: some people might not be mature or responsible to be parents.

Everybody know how to make babies but how do we make parents??

Some people might not be able to provide proper life support to children: can a single widowed woman who has to run  two jobs to barely meet ends at the month be a present mother to her children?

 

9 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

People are free to make their own decisions, just as I am free to discuss (logically) the ramifications of such decisions and whether or not it makes (objectively) ethical and moral sense to allow people to take certain actions. Unless you're saying we have absolutely no ground to dictate other's behavior or actions in any way?

Yet, you want to deny women abortions and force them to carry pregnancies to term. Where is the freedom of other making their own decisions in that?

[Emn1ty]

7 hours ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

Well, what happens when you put 'woman committing suicide because they are forced to have pregnancy' in Google? You find

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-el-salvador-suicide-teens-idUSKCN0IW1YI20141112

 

Have you ever wondered why women took extreme risks to go to back alleys before the legalization of abortion? What made them do deseperate go to black market medecine? And you want to force them to have their pregnancy and carry them to terms. How would that be done? Should they be housed in some special facilities where they are constantly monitored to ensure that they are not harming themselves or the baby? I think this would be called a prison or may be a hen house or a baby farm

It is also very patriarchal to reduce women to a mere breeding role.

No solution is perfect, the fact it's not perfect isn't an argument to approve of it. Just like the fact we can't stop all cocaine use in the US doesn't mean we should legalize it and make it entirely unregulated. I am also not reducing women to anything, not sure where you got that idea.
 

 

7 hours ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

My, my, my, such a big word: 'eugenics'. In two posts, the Godwin's point is going to be shattered into nothingness.

 

You speak a lot of life, not much about suffering. I am not talking about minor birth defects, I am talking about the example FloatingFatMan gave. Was that life for the baby? No, it was pain and torment.

There are people in this world who have suffered more than you can imagine in their entire lives and if you asked them "would you rather have never lived your life at all?" they'd probably laugh at you for even asking. The point is here despite all the suffering and pain someone may or may not go through, sometimes they feel it's worth it. That's their decision to make, not yours as their parent.

 

8 hours ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

You try to frame that couple or woman seeking abortions are selffish and do not want to be bothered by having and raising a child, as if it was a little annoying bump on their own road to personal confort.

 

Even if the various fathers around here have expressed their own joy of having children, it may not apply to everyone.

It is not that easy to raise a child: some people might not be mature or responsible to be parents.

Everybody know how to make babies but how do we make parents??

Some people might not be able to provide proper life support to children: can a single widowed woman who has to run  two jobs to barely meet ends at the month be a present mother to her children?

I am saying that all the difficulties, complications, etc that come with having a child do not outweigh the action of preventing it from even having a chance at life. So yes, it's a matter of convenience. You're the one, however, trying to assign value to the convenience in an effort to make me think caring for a child is trivial. It's not. But I don't think that justifies aborting it.

And single mothers raise their children all the time with two or even three jobs, I'm sure even you won't assert that such things aren't possible. And also, if they can't take care of the child they can always put it up for adoption. They aren't completely out of options here. I also don't believe the solution to bad parenting is abortions. Just another example of an extreme solution for a problem that has other options.

 

8 hours ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

Yet, you want to deny women abortions and force them to carry pregnancies to term. Where is the freedom of other making their own decisions in that?

You're taking this a bit out of context. This was in reply to being accused of not being an authority on the matter or having authority to make such statements. I don't need to be an authority to offer up my input. However, in regards to freedom we can all accept that freedom comes with limitations. For example, I can't steal things from the store without ramifications. I can't murder my neighbor's dog without consequences. I think abortions have a time and place, and should be regulated as any medical procedure should be. This isn't cosmetic surgery, there is a huge moral and ethical dilemma behind it.

[PGHammer]

Emn1ty - the opposition is using emotion because that is, in actuality, all they have.  There's no logic there - there is no pragmatism there, either.  Despite being on HIS side of the argument (I'm pro-choice), I'm disgusted by the argument in general entirely due to the lack of logic - on either side.  I'm tempted to declare a plague on both sides of the argument and would rather see the decision be left up to individual states (where it was prior to Roe) simply because it will ALWAYS be contentious (like Marmite).

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

17 hours ago, Raze said:

Stand still, I want this to be a clean, single shot kill.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I am glad that you posted this as I wanted to explain. The show that I was watching at the Time was Greta Vansustern and she said it was breaking news so after I watched that I posted it. If you want to she can be reached at:  @greta and #greta !

Use this , you can't miss!