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

[PGHammer]

Just now, Gary7 said:

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 !

And it's not like she's clueless; she's one of those SmartBlondes that have become a trend as of late (and no - not ALL SmartBlondes are female; two of them - the Doocy Brothers, Steve and Peter - are, in fact, quite male).

 

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

8 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

And it's not like she's clueless; she's one of those SmartBlondes that have become a trend as of late (and no - not ALL SmartBlondes are female; two of them - the Doocy Brothers, Steve and Peter - are, in fact, quite male).

 

She is an Attorney and former Prosecutor and she won some kind of award the other day. Her hair has more of a reddish cast to it and she is not as attractive as Meghan Kelly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

17 hours ago, Raze said:

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

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

[DefyTheOutcome]

30 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

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.

Forcing women to carry pregnancy to term is a bigger burden on them compared to an abortion and is a form of denial of their own personal responsibility on their own body.

 

30 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

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.

Ah, that is quite new: foetuses can decide for themselves ....

 

 

30 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

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.

It is not a question of bad parenting: it is a question of present parents: studies have that there is a link between the wellness of a child and his development and the presence of parents.

- http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/effects-parents-being-absent-home-4321.html

- http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/absent-parent-selfesteem-children-9297.html

- http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/07/15-children-absent-fathers-sawhill

 

30 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

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.

You do not want abortions to be regulated, you want abortions to be forbidden. Stop trying wiggling around it.

 

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

4 minutes ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

Forcing women to carry pregnancy to term is a bigger burden on them compared to an abortion and is a form of denial of their own personal responsibility on their own body.

 

 

4 minutes ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

Ah, that is quite new: foetuses can decide for themselves ..

 

4 minutes ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

You do not want abortions to be regulated, you want abortions to be forbidden. Stop trying wiggling around it.

 

BS to all three. No one Forces a women to carry to term, Roe v Wade fixed that. Fetuses  can probably think better than Politicians.

[Emn1ty]

1 minute ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

Forcing women to carry pregnancy to term is a bigger burden on them compared to an abortion and is a form of denial of their own personal responsibility on their own body.

 

They also have a responsibility to their offspring and to take proper steps to not getting pregnant. It's incorrect to reduce the responsibility of pregnancy to just the mother.
 

3 minutes ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

Ah, that is quite new: foetuses can decide for themselves ....

You're missing the point, I was illustrating that you as an outside party do not have the authority to dictate whether or not someone's life is going to contain too much suffering for them to handle. Upon taking that step, you are assigning specific requirements for a life to be worth living and that falls directly into eugenics practices.
 

9 minutes ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

It is not a question of bad parenting: it is a question of present parents: studies have that there is a link between the wellness of a child and his development and the presence of parents.

- http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/effects-parents-being-absent-home-4321.html

- http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/absent-parent-selfesteem-children-9297.html

- http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/07/15-children-absent-fathers-sawhill

So... because their parents will be absent it is therefore justifiable to prevent their life? I'd love for you to argue that one. I think you need to know that a "chance" is not a "guarantee". Abortions seem like a pretty final solution to something that isn't of absolute certainty (which can never be when it comes to an individual person/child/life).
 

15 minutes ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

You do not want abortions to be regulated, you want abortions to be forbidden. Stop trying wiggling around it.

I said I want it to be regulated. You have no reason to ignore my actual statement and assert I want something otherwise. Don't be one of those people who ignore what others say and superimpose a narrative that isn't present.

[PGHammer]

1 hour ago, Gary7 said:

She is an Attorney and former Prosecutor and she won some kind of award the other day. Her hair has more of a reddish cast to it and she is not as attractive as Meghan Kelly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe not - however, she was, in fact, an inspiration TO Kelly - according to no less than Megyn herself.  Greta was one of those legal brains made famous (or infamous) by coverage of the O. J, Simpson trial (she was with CNN at the time) - she got her own show on the cable network out of it ("Burden of Proof") which specialized in hot-button legal issues (not just criminal cases).  Unfortunately for us, like Megyn, she is quite happily married (and - also like Megyn, despite spending most of her legal career in Washington, DC, she's also a fan of the New York Mets).

 

Still, given opportunity, I would not turn down a date with either - and it has nothing to do with their looks or political views - instead, it has to do with their brainpower.  What doubtless drives CNN (and even Bloomberg to an extent) rather barmy is that FOX (News AND Business) has a rather extensive collection of brainpower of the female persuasion (as it turns out, there's another brainy Maria on the FOX payroll OTHER than SweaterGirl Bartiromo - it's meteorologist (and co-host of "FOX and Friends" (and part-time stormchaser)) Maria Molina - who recently married fellow stormchaser Reed Timmer @ Volcanoes National Park; yes - that means that THIS Maria also got away.)

Edited May 21, 2016 by PGHammer

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Yes you are Right, Greta  is very Smart even though she is a Cheese Head. I watch both the shows. Megyn IMHO owned Trump!

[DefyTheOutcome]

 

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

You're missing the point, I was illustrating that you as an outside party do not have the authority to dictate whether or not someone's life is going to contain too much suffering for them to handle. Upon taking that step, you are assigning specific requirements for a life to be worth living and that falls directly into eugenics practices.

Neither politicians or you. it is up to the parents who are responsible to decide with proper information given by medical professionals.

 

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

So... because their parents will be absent it is therefore justifiable to prevent their life? I'd love for you to argue that one. I think you need to know that a "chance" is not a "guarantee". Abortions seem like a pretty final solution to something that isn't of absolute certainty (which can never be when it comes to an individual person/child/life).

To awfully divert a movie famous line, great parenting comes with great responsibility. Children thrive on nuturing and education from their parents and a safe and stable environment. It is up to the parents to decide in their own consciences if they are able to have and raise a child.

 

 

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

I said I want it to be regulated. You have no reason to ignore my actual statement and assert I want something otherwise. Don't be one of those people who ignore what others say and superimpose a narrative that isn't present.

You may want to reread your previous prose on the subject.

 

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

1 minute ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

You may want to reread your previous prose on the subject.

You may want to reread your posts on this.

[DefyTheOutcome]

On ‎20‎/‎05‎/‎2016 at 11:56 PM, Raze said:

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

Let's add a bit more context http://thinkprogress.org/health/2016/05/21/3780610/oklahoma-abortion-felony-veto/

 

Gov. Mary Fallin (R-OK) has rarely met an abortion restriction she did not like. In 2008, as a member of Congress, she co-sponsored a bill to treat fetuses as people and give them equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. Since she became governor in 2011, she has signed legislation to ban many second trimester abortions, require longer waiting periods, and restrict access to medication abortion — laws that were later found to be unconstitutional.

So it came as something of a surprise when Fallin announced Friday that she had decided to veto a bill to make it a felony for doctors to perform abortions and to revoke their licenses if they carry out the procedure when it is not absolutely necessary to save the life of the woman. She described the bill as “unconstitutional” — a view shared by legal experts.

 

But rather than reject the legislation on the grounds that doctors should be free to do their jobs or that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1991 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling explicitly rejects state abortion laws that impose an “undue burden” or “substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability,” Fallin made clear that her issue with the measure, Senate Bill 1552, was entirely with its less-than-specific phrasing.

“Although Senate Bill 1552 excludes a mother’s threat of self-harm from the exception preserving the life of the mother, Senate Bill 1552 does not define ‘necessary to preserve the life of the mother,'” she wrote in her veto message. “The absence of any definition, analysis or medical standard renders this exception vague, indefinite and vulnerable to subjective interpretation and application.” Fallin added that state court precedent requires that laws be clear enough “that all persons of ordinary intelligence” can understand them.

 

In other words, Fallin objected only to the fact that there might be cases where it was not clear that the procedure was necessary to save a life.

Fallin added that while this law’s language was too “vague and ambiguous,” she supports a “re-examination of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade,” and “the appointment of a conservative, pro-life justice to the United States Supreme Court.”

Even so, the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Nathan Dahm (R) blasted the veto “from a person who claims to be pro-life,” and indicated that he hopes the Republican-controlled legislature will attempt to override the veto before the session ends on May 27.

 

So, she did not reject the bill because it was an awful bill, she rejected the bill because it was poorly worded and likely to be torpedoed as soon as it was challenged in courts

 

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

1 hour ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

Let's add a bit more context http://thinkprogress.org/health/2016/05/21/3780610/oklahoma-abortion-felony-veto/

 

 

 

It would be tossed by The Supreme Court.

[Emn1ty]

3 hours ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

Neither politicians or you. it is up to the parents who are responsible to decide with proper information given by medical professionals.

Medical professionals indeed have a say in if it is a good option; medically. But if there is no medical reason

 

3 hours ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

To awfully divert a movie famous line, great parenting comes with great responsibility. Children thrive on nuturing and education from their parents and a safe and stable environment. It is up to the parents to decide in their own consciences if they are able to have and raise a child.

I think our morals and ethics just don't align. You firmly believe that if the parents can't provide what you deem an adequate existence then there's justification to just end the life before it starts. You'll keep them from even having a go at life merely du to some statistical analysis and slippery slope logic.

This is effectively the same scenario as a person who is in a coma.  You know they will wake up, you know they will have no memory (retrograde amnesia) but you know they will also suffer upon doing so. By the logic you're providing, if you don't want to care for this person or believe that they won't be able to tolerate the amount of pain and suffering they will be exposed to then you are justified in euthanizing them before they have the chance to awaken.

[ctebah]

Perhaps if more people were educated enough to understand that a fertilized embryo is NOT a human being, we wouldn't have these stupid debates on abortion. 

[chrisj1968]

On 5/20/2016 at 1:56 PM, 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.

but there is a known fact that there's a heartbeat in the first few weeks after conception. so with a heartbeat, there's life. But there are some who use this argument so as to make this feel less guilty. But some folks use abortion as a means of contraception.

[Emn1ty]

1 hour ago, ctebah said:

Perhaps if more people were educated enough to understand that a fertilized embryo is NOT a human being, we wouldn't have these stupid debates on abortion. 

I agree that a lot of the discussion, and the heavy polarization of the discussion would go away if this was the case. But I don't think it would end all discussion.

[ctebah]

9 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

I agree that a lot of the discussion, and the heavy polarization of the discussion would go away if this was the case. But I don't think it would end all discussion.

You're right, I realize there is a lot more to abortions than just that.  And it's not a bad thing to discuss such social issues.

[FloatingFatMan]

15 hours ago, chrisj1968 said:

but there is a known fact that there's a heartbeat in the first few weeks after conception. so with a heartbeat, there's life. But there are some who use this argument so as to make this feel less guilty. But some folks use abortion as a means of contraception.

A heartbeat != life.

[mudslag]

18 hours ago, chrisj1968 said:

but there is a known fact that there's a heartbeat in the first few weeks after conception. so with a heartbeat, there's life. But there are some who use this argument so as to make this feel less guilty. But some folks use abortion as a means of contraception.

 

If by first few you mean by week 5 or 6, then yes, that's when the first heartbeats start. For some life begins at conception, for others life begins when the brain is more functional and formed. At what point life begins isn't even an argument for some that still accept abortion as a personal choice. Guilt also plays no part in it for many, so that's a moot point. 

[mudslag]

18 hours ago, chrisj1968 said:

but there is a known fact that there's a heartbeat in the first few weeks after conception. so with a heartbeat, there's life. But there are some who use this argument so as to make this feel less guilty. But some folks use abortion as a means of contraception.

 

If by first few you mean by week 5 or 6, then yes, that's when the first heartbeats start. For some life begins at conception, for others life begins when the brain is more functional and formed. At what point life begins isn't even an argument for some that still accept abortion as a personal choice. Guilt also plays no part in it for many, so that's a moot point. 

 

 

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

18 hours ago, chrisj1968 said:

but there is a known fact that there's a heartbeat in the first few weeks after conception. so with a heartbeat, there's life. But there are some who use this argument so as to make this feel less guilty. But some folks use abortion as a means of contraception.

I have seen that heat beat on my wife's ultrasound.Once you see that and then have a child, ones feelings about Roe v Wade change for most people. It is the law of the land and a choice which for some is a hard one to make. When abortion is used as a birth control method is what makes me mad.

[wakjak]

50 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

I have seen that heat beat on my wife's ultrasound.Once you see that and then have a child, ones feelings about Roe v Wade change for most people. It is the law of the land and a choice which for some is a hard one to make. When abortion is used as a birth control method is what makes me mad.

And how many times is it used as a birth control method versus being anything else? 

 

Have you been counting the people walking into abortion clinics and checking out who's a regular? 

 

Or do you just hear stories from so and so? 

 

Maybe some people just lie about being pregnant and lie about getting the abortion just to get attention. 

[Emn1ty]

1 hour ago, wakjak said:

And how many times is it used as a birth control method versus being anything else? 

 

Have you been counting the people walking into abortion clinics and checking out who's a regular? 

 

Or do you just hear stories from so and so? 

 

Maybe some people just lie about being pregnant and lie about getting the abortion just to get attention. 

76% of abortions (based on a 2004 study) are done because of being "unready", "can't afford it", "parent's/significant other wants an abortion" or "don't want to be a single parent" as the primary reason. So yes, the majority of people are using it as contraception, or in cases where birth control would have prevented it being necessary.  Only 7.5% of abortions are because of rape/incest or medical issues. That's pretty surprising to me, honestly.

 

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

[soniqstylz]

On 5/19/2016 at 3:53 PM, Emn1ty said:

What do you define as severely impaired? There's plenty of help out there for impaired children. But again, I didn't say "only the mother's life is at risk" I said "a life is at risk", this includes the child. If the child is very unlikely to make it to term then I don't see a reason to prevent abortion. Case by case is always necessary, but case by case requirement is not an argument for anytime/anyplace/any reason abortions across the board.

 

Abortions are a big deal, and they can be quite risky if not done as early as possible. From a purely medical and objective standpoint I see no real reason to have abortions take place at all (sans life threatening scenario or rape), since adoption is always an option. I don't really see why people hate the idea of putting them up for adoption.
 

Is dead impaired enough?

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/03/31/texas-woman-forced-to-deliver-stillborn-baby-due-to-abortion-ban/

[soniqstylz]

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

76% of abortions (based on a 2004 study) are done because of being "unready", "can't afford it", "parent's/significant other wants an abortion" or "don't want to be a single parent" as the primary reason. So yes, the majority of people are using it as contraception, or in cases where birth control would have prevented it being necessary.  Only 7.5% of abortions are because of rape/incest or medical issues. That's pretty surprising to me, honestly.

 

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

Well, it's a good thing that those on the side of banning abortions are very much pro-contracept---  oh wait.

[Emn1ty]

1 minute ago, soniqstylz said:

Is dead impaired enough?

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/03/31/texas-woman-forced-to-deliver-stillborn-baby-due-to-abortion-ban/

You've not read any of what I've posted. I'd say if the baby is already dead, then an abortion is moot. Just as shooting a dead body wouldn't be murder. Law isn't perfect, and it was rightly vetoed due to that fact.

 

1 minute ago, soniqstylz said:

Well, it's a good thing that those on the side of banning abortions are very much pro-contracept---  oh wait.

Those people are not me, so I'm not sure what your point is.