I Bill in front of Governor Henry requires an ultrasound be performed with the monitor viable by the mother before an abortion can be performed. It has much more in it than that, but that's what most people will care about. The naked intent is to discourage abortion by adding another step. It seems ripe for legal challenge successful or not, but lets at least look at what it really says in a simple manner:
The "Freedom of Conscience Act"
Currently SB 1878
Found here: http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2007-08bills/SB/SB1878_SFLR.RTF
To be codied as Okla. Stat. tit. 63 §§ 1-729
Sections 1 & 2 are formalities and definitions. The only interesting thing is the definition of "participate in" as in "participate in procedures: "Participate in" (means to perform, practice, engage in, assist in, recommend, counsel in favor of, make referrals for, prescribe, dispense, or administer drugs or devices or otherwise promote or encourage). The part about "counsel in favor of" strikes me as potentially troublesome - it applies to people in favor of abortion but not to people opposed - regaurdless of medical reasons or anything else.
Section 3: Employers can not discriminate against employees or perspective employees for failure to accommodate religious beliefs on abortion, stem cell research, suicide, in vitro procedures, or experiments on any stage of development that is not "beneficial treatment to the developing child."
[I'm not really sure what Section 3 is getting at. Facially, I suppose that means planned parenthood would have to hire an MD they know would refuse to give professional advise about abortions. A medical research clinic would have to hire someone who they know would refuse engage in developmental research.]
Section 4:
Health care facilities do not have to admit a patient wanting nor allow physicians to use their facilities for any of the above. And no employee can be disciplined for refusing to help with any of the above and is immune from liability for such refusal if on moral or religious grounds.
Section 5:
Extends section 4 to schools - geared towards university level. Tenor, hiring, etc. not affected by refusal based on moral or religious...
Section 6:
If adversely affected in violation of this law (fired) they can sue in civil court and get attorney fees.
Then House Amendment to the Engrossed Version of SB 1878, it technically over rules all the above but then restates it exactly the same, but adds:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2007-08bills/HB/SB1878_HASB.RTF (this link is the most complete version)
Section 7:
A. Definitions
B. MDs have to follow federal law and be qualified to administer the abortion pill.
C. MDs must comply with federal law in re abortion
D. If there are complications they must be reported (a list including "adverse reaction" as examples of complications)
E. Does not apply to manufacturers or distributors of drugs, just MDs
F. If not complied with, Married Fathers, Mothers and/or Grandparents can sue MDs for actual and punitive damages (doesn't say if medical malpractice or otherwise, authorizes suit and damages for failure to comply a a de facto cause and does not appear require actual damages)
Section 8:
Requires a large sign to be posted in any location that might perform (perform includes "advise in favor of") abortions other than to prevent death, which reads:
Notice: It is against the law for anyone, regardless of his or her relationship to you, to force you to have an abortion. By law, we cannot perform, induce, prescribe for, or provide you with the means for an abortion unless we have your freely given and voluntary consent. It is against the law to perform, induce, prescribe for, or provide you with the means for an abortion against your will. You have the right to contact any local or state law enforcement agency to receive protection from any actual or threatened physical abuse or violence.
Section 9:
Damages are $10,000 a day for failure to comply with the sign plus a cause of action for anyone damages by lack of a sign
Section 10:
Minors must be orally informed of the notice on the sign plus must sign an informed consent document stipulating he told her the info (kept on file).
Section 11:
Definitions - all seem standard
Section 12: Seems to be the most controversial or grabbing the most headlines, so bold and ACTUAl text.A. (applies to abortion providers...)
quote:
B. In order for the woman to make an informed decision, at least one (1) hour prior to a woman having any part of an abortion performed or induced, and prior to the administration of any anesthesia or medication in preparation for the abortion on the woman, the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion, or the certified technician working in conjunction with the physician, shall:
1. Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, using either a vaginal transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly;
2. Provide a simultaneous explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting;
3. Display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them;
4. Provide a medical description of the ultrasound images, which shall include the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, if present and viewable, and the presence of external members and internal organs, if present and viewable; and
5. Obtain a written certification from the woman, prior to the abortion, that the requirements of subsection B have been complied with; and
6. Retain a copy of the written certification prescribed by paragraph 5 of this subsection...
C. The women can overt their eyes if they want (but have to listen apperently)
It goes on to provide penalties for avoiding or falsifying the requirements in Section 13.
Section 14:
Wrongful birth is NOT a cause of action in Oklahoma (technically if you went in for an abortion and the MD instead birthed a fetus and it lived, you can not sue for the birth nor any condition in the child).
- - -
So now you know! I'll chime in when the ball gets rolling, but I have seen this talked about on the news and around town and few people really know what it says.
It's redundant.
Oklahoma Planned Parenthood does not provide abortions and women already receive an ultra sounds prior to the abortion to determine how advanced the pregancy is.
A more straight-forward bill might require every Dr.'s office to have on hand one of those rubber-chicken-like, goopy/bloody fetuses which they can fake a yank and toss to the mother before they actually perform the real procedure.
...if it's shock value they're after.
And, having an anti-abortion nurse on hand during an abortion procedure is just what the patient needs, they think. Is that just to be sure name and address information gets reported correctly to the public?
This bill needs to be vetoed, fast.
In my opinion, these measures are efforts to lay guilt on the woman and discourage abortion, no matter what the circumstances are. It is more efforts among the anti-abortion groups to slowly pick away at women's reproductive rights.
Abortion is not an easy decision to be taken lightly, but it is the fundamental right of any female to decide these matters between herself, her doctors, and her conscience. No one or any government has any right to interfer with that decision.
"...no matter what the circumstances are."
What do you mean by this? Most abortions, 79% to 98%, are performed for personal reasons (i.e. unprepared, unable to afford, interferes with school, etc.)
Reasons provided for abortion (//%22http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html%22)
"Abortion is not an easy decision to be taken lightly"
Statistics show that US pregnancies end in abortions from 25% to 30% of the time based upon CDC numbers over the last few years. I would think that an act which is "not an easy decision" would occur at lower frequencies than 1 out of 3 depending on the year.
As an aside, the bill will go nowhere. Providing these services for free for those who request it and can't afford it seems more likely to pass.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
Abortion is not an easy decision to be taken lightly, but it is the fundamental right of any female to decide these matters between herself, her doctors, and her conscience. No one or any government has any right to interfer with that decision.
Really? I thought the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld the ban on partial birth abortion. I guess government can interfere with this decision.
Is there a valid medical reason to do an ultrasound as part of an abortion procedure? Or is this just another attempt to pressure a pregnant woman at a very stressful moment? I could fully understand it if her doctor stood next to her bed to say, "Yes, this is necessary." But it's a totally different animal when a lawmaker in Oklahoma City says so.
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
Is there a valid medical reason to do an ultrasound as part of an abortion procedure? Or is this just another attempt to pressure a pregnant woman at a very stressful moment? I could fully understand it if her doctor stood next to her bed to say, "Yes, this is necessary." But it's a totally different animal when a lawmaker in Oklahoma City says so.
It is only an attempt to lay more guilt on the woman contemplating an abortion. One more attempt to discourage the process. A foolish, unnecesary law and a crass attempt by abortion foes to further limit access to the procedure. The people and legislators that passed this law should be ashamed of themselves, and I hope Governor Henry has the guts to veto this legislation.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
Is there a valid medical reason to do an ultrasound as part of an abortion procedure? Or is this just another attempt to pressure a pregnant woman at a very stressful moment? I could fully understand it if her doctor stood next to her bed to say, "Yes, this is necessary." But it's a totally different animal when a lawmaker in Oklahoma City says so.
It is only an attempt to lay more guilt on the woman contemplating an abortion. One more attempt to discourage the process. A foolish, unnecesary law and a crass attempt by abortion foes to further limit access to the procedure. The people and legislators that passed this law should be ashamed of themselves, and I hope Governor Henry has the guts to veto this legislation.
By all means let's take those "people and legislators" out back and beat the sh@t out of them because they dare to have a different view on life issues than you Steve. Oh, and I am pro-life and by no means am I ashamed of my view or my faith that underlies that view.
With Democrats like these, who needs Republicans:
The state Senate voted 38-10 Wednesday for Senate Bill 1878, which included a number of abortion provisions.
Democrats voting for the measure (14): Randy Bass, Sean Burrage, Kenneth Corn, Mary Easley, Earl Garrison, Jay Paul Gumm, Tom Ivester, Charlie Laster, Debbe Leftwich, Susan Paddack, Nancy Riley, John Sparks, Joe Sweeden and Charles Wyrick.
I love it when men argue abortion.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
I love it when men argue abortion.
Do you laugh when non-soldiers discuss war? Or when environmentalists who do not earn a living in mines or heavy industry talk about mother Earth? What about when people without children worry about education? How about people without cancer wanting more funding for cancer research? Men who want more drastic punishments for male - female rape?
In society, a direct impact is not needed for you your opinion to matter. But I would assert that medical procedures on, or life choices of, my girlfriend, wife or daughter are in fact personal issues for me and often more important to me than my own health. Not too mention the greater societal issues that both sides argue on behalf of.
So I think many people have a stake in this matter. People who want abortions, people who wish to protect fetuses, male and female.
- - -
quote:
Guido Write
Oh, and I am pro-life and by no means am I ashamed of my view or my faith that underlies that view
Nor should you be, but that is not a reason to dictate those views as laws upon others that do not share them. That my friend, is called theocracy - the act of dictating other's behavior based on your religious beliefs. I understand there are other justifications for pro-life laws, but the bottom line is it stands against many people's religious beliefs.
I respect your faith and your view, but please understand while your religious belief fails to persuade people in their positions.
- - -
Not that it will nor should effect anyones view, but n case anyone is curious, the poll breaks down 57% think it should be legal, 40% illegal, and 3% refuse to think. A total of 15% believe it should be illegal no matter what (Rape incest, medical problem). Those numbers are pretty steady over the years.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Wow CF. I am pushing a theocracy because I support a pro-life/anti-abortion law on religious grounds? I also support anti-murder and anti-theft laws on religious grounds (that 10 Commandments thing). Maybe this country is a theocracy then. I also kinda believe we as Americans are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights"--a powerful non-secular phrase from the document that essentially formed this country--which in my view extends to all who are created. So please, enough with the hyperbole.
As for the first part of your post re: males having on opinion on the abortion issue, I think your position is spot on. Indeed I have made that exact argument to others in this forum. It usually shuts them up.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
I love it when men argue abortion.
I understand your point, and in some ways I am sorry I chimed in on this issue. There have been some great Op-Ed articles in the World recently about this bill.
In the least, this latest measure is just one more effort to lay guilt on women contemplating an abortion, without regard to the circumstances. For shame to the Oklahoma Legislature. The Tulsa female legislator that co-sponsored this bill was asked about the ultrasound provisions, and she said "well the woman could close her eyes!" (I am paraphrasing here.) Typical callous attitude.
Women's reproductive "rights?" I'd like to educate you on something; abortion is not "reproduction."
Why is is that it's a "woman's right" where in reality there are more people involved?
What about the father? Does HE have ANY say at all?
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
In my opinion, these measures are efforts to lay guilt on the woman and discourage abortion, no matter what the circumstances are. It is more efforts among the anti-abortion groups to slowly pick away at women's reproductive rights.
Abortion is not an easy decision to be taken lightly, but it is the fundamental right of any female to decide these matters between herself, her doctors, and her conscience. No one or any government has any right to interfer with that decision.
TFAN: They call it "women's reproductive rights" both as a means to sanitize the actual barbarism associated with the abortion procedure and to frame the debate. Folks like Nelly and Steve argue it's the woman's body, thus it's only a woman's issue and the government should butt out. Of course, you do not hear that argument when it comes to the government forcing a man's body into a military uniform via the draft to fight and perhaps die to preserve these "reproductive rights".
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
TFAN: They call it "women's reproductive rights" both as a means to sanitize the actual barbarism associated with the abortion procedure and to frame the debate. Folks like Nelly and Steve argue it's the woman's body, thus it's only a woman's issue and the government should butt out. Of course, you do not hear that argument when it comes to the government forcing a man's body into a military uniform via the draft to fight and perhaps die to preserve these "reproductive rights".
I have never said that the father should not have any say in the matter. In cases where the pregnancy involves a married or committed man and partner, of course the father should have an equal say in the matter.
In cases of a single mother where the father is absent or is not involved for any reason, it is the woman that has to carry the child for 9 months in her body, and she has the ultimate authority.
Many married couples make the decision to terminate a pregnancy because of fetus defects or complications; it is never a situation to be taken lightly. The new law forces mothers to view their defective fetus via ultrasound just prior to abortion. It all seems just damn cruel to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
I love it when men argue abortion.
I understand your point, and in some ways I am sorry I chimed in on this issue. There have been some great Op-Ed articles in the World recently about this bill.
In the least, this latest measure is just one more effort to lay guilt on women contemplating an abortion, without regard to the circumstances. For shame to the Oklahoma Legislature. The Tulsa female legislator that co-sponsored this bill was asked about the ultrasound provisions, and she said "well the woman could close her eyes!" (I am paraphrasing here.) Typical callous attitude.
And I also want to add, that until a man (myself included), can do nothing more painful than pass a kindey stone, we should stay the heck out of the debate and defer pregnancy decisions to women and their doctors. It is women that have to carry the child, endure the birth, nausea, discomfort, hormone changes, episiotomy, and years of lacatation. We men may contribute the sperm, but that is all when it comes to the physical effort of birthing a child.
This latest OK "abortion bill" is an abomination, and I sincerely hope it falls dead in a court challenge.
Has Gov. Henry decided if he is signing this into law?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Wow CF. I am pushing a theocracy because I support a pro-life/anti-abortion law on religious grounds? I also support anti-murder and anti-theft laws on religious grounds (that 10 Commandments thing). Maybe this country is a theocracy then.
Guido, my point was that the "my religious views dictate..." theory is non-persuasive on people that do not share your religious views. Primarily religion is the the reasoning behind laws inhibiting abortion. If religion can be used to justify this law, why not others? I am not accusing you of trying to form a theocracy, I merely pointed out that it is an accurate term for describing a country of laws justified by religion.
The other laws you mention in that 10 Commandment thing have a strong societal basis. Property rights, individual liberties, and general societal harmony. You can justify most existing laws apart from any religious context which may exist.
The non-secular phrase heralding our inalienable rights is decidedly neutral as to which god granted those rights (only some Christian gods chime in on abortion, other Christian gods are ambivalent, and other faith's gods are pro-choice). Thus ruling or justifying laws which many religions and potential creators differ on proves difficult. Our nation is based on religion to be sure, but on the notion that no one religion is the correct one.
Not trying to be offensive or even argue my point, just trying to explain why a theology based argument is non-persuasive on many people and/or the courts.
..but killing babies is such a swell idea. Everyone should have the "right" to do that.
</sarcasm>
Heh, well if you want to bate a discussion on the larger issue any good debater would have to start by rephrasing the discussion quickly away from the emotionally attaching word "baby" to fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus depending on the stage of development. Baby refers to a child from age "birth to one year of age."
That would be immediately followed up by biblical reinforcing of the notion that an unborn child is not a "baby" in that the death of a fetus was a property crime punished with a fine. Whereas the death of a baby was considered murder.
But man, we really don't want to go over all that again.[xx(]
I just thought this law was interesting and had heard a bit about it and found it interesting to see what it really said. I thought others might be interested also - on either side of the debate.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Wow CF. I am pushing a theocracy because I support a pro-life/anti-abortion law on religious grounds? I also support anti-murder and anti-theft laws on religious grounds (that 10 Commandments thing). Maybe this country is a theocracy then.
Guido, my point was that the "my religious views dictate..." theory is non-persuasive on people that do not share your religious views. Primarily religion is the the reasoning behind laws inhibiting abortion. If religion can be used to justify this law, why not others? I am not accusing you of trying to form a theocracy, I merely pointed out that it is an accurate term for describing a country of laws justified by religion.
The other laws you mention in that 10 Commandment thing have a strong societal basis. Property rights, individual liberties, and general societal harmony. You can justify most existing laws apart from any religious context which may exist.
The non-secular phrase heralding our inalienable rights is decidedly neutral as to which god granted those rights (only some Christian gods chime in on abortion, other Christian gods are ambivalent, and other faith's gods are pro-choice). Thus ruling or justifying laws which many religions and potential creators differ on proves difficult. Our nation is based on religion to be sure, but on the notion that no one religion is the correct one.
Not trying to be offensive or even argue my point, just trying to explain why a theology based argument is non-persuasive on many people and/or the courts.
I do not think your being offensive...just wrong[:)]
My opinions on abortion, embryonic stem cell research and indeed my opposition to the death penalty are based on religious principles. I also support some programs to assist the poor and, believe it or not, would support some type of universal health care (not those advanced by our presidential candidates though)...also for religious reasons. By supporting legislation that is consistent with my relgious views does not make me a theocrat--which in the context of your post I thought was intended to be demeaning. It makes me a citizen with an opinion.
It is interesting and I appreciate you posting it, CF.
I'm not a debater by any means, I just wanted to inject a sarcastic comment into the thread for whatever reason. =]
Ever see the movie Juno? Su-Chin at the abortion clinic protesting and saying 'All babies want to get borned!!!'. Funny stuff.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
TFAN: They call it "women's reproductive rights" both as a means to sanitize the actual barbarism associated with the abortion procedure and to frame the debate. Folks like Nelly and Steve argue it's the woman's body, thus it's only a woman's issue and the government should butt out. Of course, you do not hear that argument when it comes to the government forcing a man's body into a military uniform via the draft to fight and perhaps die to preserve these "reproductive rights".
I have never said that the father should not have any say in the matter. In cases where the pregnancy involves a married or committed man and partner, of course the father should have an equal say in the matter.
In cases of a single mother where the father is absent or is not involved for any reason, it is the woman that has to carry the child for 9 months in her body, and she has the ultimate authority.
Many married couples make the decision to terminate a pregnancy because of fetus defects or complications; it is never a situation to be taken lightly. The new law forces mothers to view their defective fetus via ultrasound just prior to abortion. It all seems just damn cruel to me.
Oh I'm sorry Steve, I guess I misunderstood this exact quote from one of your posts in this thread: "Abortion is not an easy decision to be taken lightly, but it is the fundamental right of any female to decide these matters between herself, her doctors, and her conscience." Perhaps I should have just presumed you meant to include men having the "fundamental right of the female."
As for the reast of your post re: viewing defects in the fetus. I wonder if you even know statistically why women have abortions. If not, try this link.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
Can't say as that I approve... And I would bet no one cares what I think anyway...
But if she doesn't want the baby, I am sure not going to be the person that tells her she shas to have it.
I hate these niche issues that no one will ever change their minds on. Either you are for it or against it.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
I hate these niche issues that no one will ever change their minds on. Either you are for it or against it.
Really? Tell that Jane Roe a la Roe v. Wade fame (or infamy).
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/21/mccorvey.interview/
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
I love it when men argue abortion.
I understand your point, and in some ways I am sorry I chimed in on this issue. There have been some great Op-Ed articles in the World recently about this bill.
In the least, this latest measure is just one more effort to lay guilt on women contemplating an abortion, without regard to the circumstances. For shame to the Oklahoma Legislature. The Tulsa female legislator that co-sponsored this bill was asked about the ultrasound provisions, and she said "well the woman could close her eyes!" (I am paraphrasing here.) Typical callous attitude.
And I also want to add, that until a man (myself included), can do nothing more painful than pass a kindey stone, we should stay the heck out of the debate and defer pregnancy decisions to women and their doctors. It is women that have to carry the child, endure the birth, nausea, discomfort, hormone changes, episiotomy, and years of lacatation. We men may contribute the sperm, but that is all when it comes to the physical effort of birthing a child.
This latest OK "abortion bill" is an abomination, and I sincerely hope it falls dead in a court challenge.
Your weighing the life of a human being versus nausea, discomfort and lactation. I hope you realize how petty and foolish that sounds? Not conceiving a child in the first place sounds like a better option, but that requires personal responsibility, and from time to time a little thing called "restraint."
Heaven forbid we expect people accept responsibility for the choices they make. No... The people who bear the burden of the abortion are the children (the only party without culpability). The countless thousands of people who can't conceive or want to adopt one of these "inconveniences" eliminate the excuse of "not ready, not financially able, still in school, etc" which happen to encompass 75%+ of the reasons given for the decision to have an abortion.
And who are you to tell me what I have to do again?
If I want to have an abortion or for that matter, a haircut, it is none of your business.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
It's redundant.
Oklahoma Planned Parenthood does not provide abortions and women already receive an ultra sounds prior to the abortion to determine how advanced the pregancy is.
Then there should be no problem if this gets passed.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
And who are you to tell me what I have to do again?
If I want to have an abortion or for that matter, a haircut, it is none of your business.
And I though that comparing abortion to morning sickness was pathetic, glad to see you lower the bar and compare it to a haircut. It's also great to see people considering such weighty matters with such flippant attitudes.
The libertine attitude towards abortion amuses me, since most of those supporting abortion condone massive government regulation in every other facet of life.
Simply put:
Abortion should be regulated by each State.
Roe v. Wade was a gross overuse of the power from the bench.
Someone please go find me the "Right to Privacy" in our U.S. Constitution.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
And who are you to tell me what I have to do again?
If I want to have an abortion or for that matter, a haircut, it is none of your business.
First, you are the one responsible for looking foolish with your "no one will ever change their minds" on the abortion issue idiocy. I cannot help your being embarassed (nah, humiliated) by the fact that the woman symbolizing the pro-abortion view had changed her mind.
But more importantly, just wow, comparing the decision to have an abortion to having a haircut...This speaks volumes to the credibility of anything you ever post again. What absolute absurdity.
quote:
Originally posted by BierGarten
Simply put:
Abortion should be regulated by each State.
Roe v. Wade was a gross overuse of the power from the bench.
Someone please go find me the "Right to Privacy" in our U.S. Constitution.
As much as I loathe abortion, I agree with you, this should be decided at the State level, although the 10th amendment died long ago along with our reserved powers...
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
I love it when men argue abortion.
+++++ 1
quote:
Originally posted by cks511
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
I love it when men argue abortion.
+++++ 1
Yeah that damned lump of tissue that's an exact 50% genetic copy of their father, not to mention 50% alive because of the father... I can't imagine why the father would like to have a say in whether that life is terminated to or not [xx(]
Are you attempting to say that a father has NO rights whatsoever? Sounds awfully sexist.
CF addressed the absurdity of this position earlier. You should go back and read it thoroughly.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by cks511
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
I love it when men argue abortion.
+++++ 1
Yeah that damned lump of tissue that's an exact 50% genetic copy of their father, not to mention 50% alive because of the father... I can't imagine why the father would like to have a say in whether that life is terminated to or not [xx(]
Are you attempting to say that a father has NO rights whatsoever? Sounds awfully sexist.
YES I AM saying that to the extent of his desire to be a viable part of the child's life. You know most of you errrr, MEN on this board would probably take responsibility or interest in the child's future, so, I'm not sure you have the perspective of the young girl who's life is less than the 'Tulsa Forum lifestyle' and was left holding. You need a little finish to your edge.
quote:
Originally posted by cks511
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by cks511
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
I love it when men argue abortion.
+++++ 1
Yeah that damned lump of tissue that's an exact 50% genetic copy of their father, not to mention 50% alive because of the father... I can't imagine why the father would like to have a say in whether that life is terminated to or not [xx(]
Are you attempting to say that a father has NO rights whatsoever? Sounds awfully sexist.
YES I AM saying that to the extent of his desire to be a viable part of the child's life. Now, you just get over your maleness.
How would you feel if the government required the permission of the father for the woman to keep the child, and the father could force an unwanted abortion?
Unilateral decision making in issues concerning multiple parties is not only fundamentally unfair, but extremely selfish to all other interested parties.
Hiding behind a veil of "fighting maleness" whatever the hell that means is just a copout.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by cks511
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
I love it when men argue abortion.
+++++ 1
Yeah that damned lump of tissue that's an exact 50% genetic copy of their father, not to mention 50% alive because of the father... I can't imagine why the father would like to have a say in whether that life is terminated to or not [xx(]
Are you attempting to say that a father has NO rights whatsoever? Sounds awfully sexist.
CF addressed the absurdity of this position earlier. You should go back and read it thoroughly.
IP, would you please get over your "maleness", whatever the hell that means (except that it's not sexist).
The 'State level" solution doesn't really work out. It is a great way to punt the question, but a fetus is either a protected individual and killing it is illegal or a fetus is part of the mother and a medical procedure is her choice. Unfortunately, our constitution does not allow the States to decide what warrants constitutional protection (Fetus - a US citizen in Oklahoma but bio-waste in California?).
Furthermore, a state ban on abortion would be a farce. Any Tulsa woman could either order abortion pills or acquire them illegally or just go on a weekend trip to Missouri. It would make neither party happy.
As watered down as the 10th is, this seems like a valid federal domain (what life denotes constitutional protection). If the argument is that a fetus is a human being warranting the full protection of the constitution - then it is the proper domain of the Federal government.
Now, if the argument is rephrased arguing that a state wants to provide EXTRA protection above the constitution then we have a conflict with a woman who has a Federal Constitutional right to decide her own medical treatment. Basic conflicts of law... Fed wins.
If I missed something in that brief analysis, let me know. But it doesn't appear a state solution is really viable, given the interpretation of Federal dominance in conflicts of law (for better: Race relations, or Worse: most other things).
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
IP, would you please get over your "maleness", whatever the hell that means (except that it's not sexist).
I don't know why I argue against abortion, there are clearly people alive who would have benefited from the procedure...
Sexist I am then, I did rewrite my post to deliver a less sharp reply. And sexist this issue will be...it will always be (as noted throughout this thread)he said, she said. Glad I could get a rise out ya!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The 'State level" solution doesn't really work out. It is a great way to punt the question, but a fetus is either a protected individual and killing it is illegal or a fetus is part of the mother and a medical procedure is her choice. Unfortunately, our constitution does not allow the States to decide what warrants constitutional protection (Fetus - a US citizen in Oklahoma but bio-waste in California?).
I'm still trying to figure out why the constitution allows for this discussion at the federal level any more that the state? I know what you're saying, but if you really think about it, the only rational answer is that it was the fancy of the judicial branch at one time or another...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
IP, would you please get over your "maleness", whatever the hell that means (except that it's not sexist).
I don't know why I argue against abortion, there are clearly people alive who would have benefited from the procedure...
Because the pro-life argument needs intelligent input (not to mention that the unborn needs help)
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
IP, would you please get over your "maleness", whatever the hell that means (except that it's not sexist).
I don't know why I argue against abortion, there are clearly people alive who would have benefited from the procedure...
This is why. Some Yale student having abortion for art purposes (I only hope it's a hoax):
http://yaledailynews.com/story.html
Come on Steve, Nelly. Defend this! Tell us why we need abortion on demand.
Veto
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=12&articleID=20080417_1_A1_hAsen08781
A senator vows an override attempt of the governor's action.
OKLAHOMA CITY -- Gov. Brad Henry vetoed an abortion bill late Wednesday that would have required anyone seeking to terminate a pregnancy to have an ultrasound within one hour before the procedure.
The Oklahoma Senate voted 38-10 last week for Senate Bill 1878, which was amended in the House to include several abortion measures. The bill's authors are Sen. Todd Lamb, R-Edmond, and Rep. Pam Peterson, R-Tulsa.
"While I support reasonable restrictions on abortion, this legislation does not provide an essential exemption for victims of rape and incest," Henry said in his veto message.
"By forcing the victims of such horrific acts to undergo and view ultrasounds after they have made such a difficult and heartbreaking decision, the state victimizes the victim for a second time. It would be unconscionable to subject victims of rape and incest to such treatment.
"Because of this critical flaw, I cannot in good conscience sign this legislation."
Lamb vowed a veto override attempt as soon as possible. He said he was disappointed with the governor's decision.
It would take 32 votes in the Senate to override the veto. The Senate is tied with 24 Republicans and 24 Democrats.
It would take 68 votes in the Republican-controlled House to override the veto.
If it became law, the measure would require women or girls who seek abortions to undergo ultrasounds within one hour of the procedures.
It would require that the images be displayed so that the patient could see them. It also would require the examiner to provide a medical description of the images, including dimensions of the embryo or fetus and the presence of cardiac activity.
Tony J. Lauinger, chairman of Oklahomans for Life, said an ultrasound provides essential information to women. They need the information to make truly informed decisions, Lauinger said.
"Abortion is not a solution to the tragedy of rape," he said.
Dr. Dana Stone, an Oklahoma City physician and chairwoman of the Oklahoma Section of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, said she hopes the the veto will be sustained.
Stone said a lot more is wrong with the bill than just the ultrasound provision. "It is a mistake to let the state Legislature hijack anyone's personal interaction with a physician like they have with this bill."
The bill also would require minors who seek abortions to provide written consent.
The measure also would allow health-care providers to refuse to participate in abortions and would ban "wrongful-life" lawsuits, which claim that a baby would have been better off aborted.
The measure also would require documentation when the chemical abortion pill RU-486 is prescribed and used to ensure that it is administered properly.
Doctors who prescribe RU-486 would have to report adverse effects to the Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision or to the State Board of Osteopathic Examiners.
The information, except the patient's name and other identifying information, would be public.
Last year, Henry vetoed a bill that prohibited the use of state funds or facilities for abortions, but he chose to let a subsequent version that provided exceptions for rape and incest victims become law without his signature.
Override.
I think it is absolutely barbaric to force a woman or girl who has been raped to undergo an ultrasound, especially if it is performed vaginally. How much more does that woman have to endure to end a pregnancy brought about by violence.
Imagine a young girl, impregnated by her father or her uncle or a friend of the family, to have to look at an image on a screen and have it described to her prior to terminating a devastating pregnancy.
This disgusting piece of legislation is just another way to undermine a woman's control over her own body. It reeks of misogyny. I am proud to say that my representative voted against the override. Argue all you want but the fact remains, whether pro or anti-choice, no one makes the decision to obtain an abortion lightly or without much personal soul searching with herself, her partner, her doctor, her clergy, her family or anyone else she discusses this with.
Forcing unnecessary procedures on someone who has spent countless hours weighing the decision to terminate an unwanted pregancy (for whatever reason) is demeaning to all women. We aren't stupid and we can make our own decisions, in our own manner, within the confines of our family without the interference of politicians.
I have to say the whole part of the bill that states any doctor who is anti choice does not have to perform abortions, is at best, laughable. I didn't know there were so many doctors in Oklahoma forced to provide abortions against their will. They must be the same doctors that provide all those welfare mothers free abortions with our tax dollars (snark). The reality is Oklahoma has about three abortion providers. None of them get money from the state to provide abortions to women on welfare. If there is a serious health risk to the mother, and she happens to be on some sort of aid, then, yes, some of our tax money may pay for that. But it's not at an abortion provider, it's at her gynocologists office or in a hospital. Because she is at risk or the baby is at risk.
Nuff said from me. You all know my opinion on this topic.
Back to your arguments, men. (I particulary like the whiner who equated abortion rights with being forced into uniform to defend them. Last time I checked, men were not forced into the military in the US and, in case you didn't get the memo, women serve in combat too).
Well said Nelly.
I think the Governor's comments were right on as well.
^+1
Well, I think its absolutely barbaric to rip apart an unborn child who is completely innocent. In my opinion, such reeks of murder.
In any case, our legislature has spoken today for the unborn. I know how that disappoints you.
Guido, you have taken any debate out of the matter and are addressing it as a purely emotional issue. If your intent is to change peoples minds or at least cause them to think about their position, you are failing. Clearly they disagree with your premise that the "unborn" is a child and that it is murder, so by sticking to that argument you make discussion moot.
Would it be helpful if I wrote:
Clearly the governor has spoken today for the rights of women, I know how disappointed you are.
No, it would not be helpful at all.
If you wish to actual engage in the dialog please explain to those who disagree how this law would be helpful. Other than satisfying your religious credence, what good would come from forcing a rape victim to look at a fetus that resulted from that rape?
Not telling you that your opinion is lesser, just trying to let you see how it is not going to accomplish your goal of convincing people abortion is wrong. Hope you do not take offense.
I think it would be fine to have an exception for rape/incest since it's the reason given for less than 1% of all abortions...
That being said, why are we so afraid of producing a "guilty" response for an individual seeking an abortion for personal reasons? Yet again, people are being protected from having to exercise even a modicum of personal responsibility.
Those who oppose this understand that it's hard to sanitize something when you see it with your own eyes.
Isn't it the mantra from the pro-choice side that more "information" and "education" is the key to cutting down the number of abortions performed?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Guido, you have taken any debate out of the matter and are addressing it as a purely emotional issue. If your intent is to change peoples minds or at least cause them to think about their position, you are failing. Clearly they disagree with your premise that the "unborn" is a child and that it is murder, so by sticking to that argument you make discussion moot.
Would it be helpful if I wrote:
Clearly the governor has spoken today for the rights of women, I know how disappointed you are.
No, it would not be helpful at all.
If you wish to actual engage in the dialog please explain to those who disagree how this law would be helpful. Other than satisfying your religious credence, what good would come from forcing a rape victim to look at a fetus that resulted from that rape?
Not telling you that your opinion is lesser, just trying to let you see how it is not going to accomplish your goal of convincing people abortion is wrong. Hope you do not take offense.
As I am not trying to convince anyone of anything on the life issue in this thread, I am not offended. While I disagree that people are so firmly entrenched in their position on abortion that their opinions cannot be turned, those on this thread appear to be locked into their opinion. In other words, debate and dialogue with the likes of Steve, Nelly, and perhaps yourself on the efficacy or even fairness of the new pro-life bill is an exercise in futilty.
What is left, however, is the ad hominems flying around that pro-lifers are misogynists and that men have no right to an opinion on abortion(admittedly, ad hominems go both ways). These statements, which are plainly designed to reduce the strength or discredit another's argument, illustrates the inherent emotional aspect of the abortion issue. So please do not suggest that somehow you can carve emotion out of the abortion debate and argue pure legal substance. Along that line, although I am not certain, I suspect a majority of Americans have never read Roe, Casey, or Carhart, or any other abortion case, much less cases such as Griswold where the underpinnings of a constitutional right to privacy is found. Thus, how can one argue the legality of Oklahoma's new statute--which should be what is at issue because plainly the overwhelming majority of Oklahoma's legislators rebuked the Governor's veto. Without knowing the legal issues, we are left with considering the traumatic experience the rape victim might experience with the ultrasound and so on. Oppose that argument, then the course of the argument degenerates to dredged up, tired 1970s feminist mantras like "You are a man, you have no right to an opinion."
As a side note, has anyone ever pointed out that you come off somewhat arrogant? I mean, you act as if you were appointed (or annointed) the "debate referee", free to judge how an argument is being conducted and offering us a free education on how we can improve. [:)]
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Well said Nelly.
I think the Governor's comments were right on as well.
Thank goodness we have a Governor that recognizes these issues and had the guts to veto this bill. Besides circumstances of rape/incest, there are also circumstances when it is known that the fetus has severe birth defects, and survival post birth is nil. That was the case with a recent family member of mine. I think there is a good chance that Henry's veto will be overridden, give the attitudes of the current OK Legislature, but I thank our Governor for his stance and courage.
The abortion debate will go on and on for generations to come, much like the homosexuality debate of "nature vs. nurture." We can argue these issues till the cows come home, and never definatively decide them. I say in these moral matters, live your life in accordance with your convictions, but don't expect others to do the same, or try to force your beliefs on others via civil law. That way, you can die with a clear conscience.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
As a side note, has anyone ever pointed out that you come off somewhat arrogant? I mean, you act as if you were appointed (or annointed) the "debate referee", free to judge how an argument is being conducted and offering us a free education on how we can improve. [:)]
AOX points it out about every other day. I'm not trying to be arrogant, just trying to keep threads as discussion instead of descending in totality to "baby killer" vs. "freedom haters" or whatever. The alternative would be to ignore it (thread usually goes downhill) or join in (and how).
Generally, I've found if someone points out it is in danger of descending and explains why, it either dies or actually gets back on track. This is true for when I point it out, or when someone tells me I'm going over board. In this instance, I understand that most people are more emotionally involved than I am so I was trying to explain that as a matter of discussion either side's emotional arguments are not effective.
Perhaps I was stating the obvious, but trying to get back to logic is the only way I know how to respond to emotional arguments without responding in kind. I apologize if it comes off as arrogant. I assure you I do not think my own opinion is any more important than any other (well, ok. Honestly I think it is more important than
some, but not most. [;)]).
Thanks just the same for point it out, keep me on the straight and narrow!
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
That being said, why are we so afraid of producing a "guilty" response for an individual seeking an abortion for personal reasons? Yet again, people are being protected from having to exercise even a modicum of personal responsibility.
Isn't it the mantra from the pro-choice side that more "information" and "education" is the key to cutting down the number of abortions performed?
Yup. I have no problems with others trying to appeal to their consciences about abortions. And it would seem that a lack of personal responsibility of many, many abortions is key.
The art of persuasion seems to go missing in a lot of pro-life arguments, unfortunately.
However, to be additionally punitive to women are are pregnant through absolutely no fault of their own is unduly cruel. Going through rape and incest is hell enough. To start throwing up ultrasounds and other obstacles to these women who've made this decision is just being an a**hole.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
That being said, why are we so afraid of producing a "guilty" response for an individual seeking an abortion for personal reasons? Yet again, people are being protected from having to exercise even a modicum of personal responsibility.
Isn't it the mantra from the pro-choice side that more "information" and "education" is the key to cutting down the number of abortions performed?
Yup. I have no problems with others trying to appeal to their consciences about abortions. And it would seem that a lack of personal responsibility of many, many abortions is key.
The art of persuasion seems to go missing in a lot of pro-life arguments, unfortunately.
However, to be additionally punitive to women are are pregnant through absolutely no fault of their own is unduly cruel. Going through rape and incest is hell enough. To start throwing up ultrasounds and other obstacles to these women who've made this decision is just being an a**hole.
I hope that you just mistakenly left out my first sentence where I explicitly stated that I think abortions in the case of rape/incest should be exempted from this law. Because from your response it looks like you were intentionally misquoting me.
No, that was a mistake on my part, iplaw. Caffeine hasn't kicked in this morning.
I agree with you on the rape and incest stance, if it wasn't already apparent.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
No, that was a mistake on my part, iplaw. Caffeine hasn't kicked in this morning.
I agree with you on the rape and incest stance, if it wasn't already apparent.
I switched to Pepsi Max in the morning. Coffee just doesn't get it done anymore...
Ok-la-homa! where the fundamentalist patriarchy comes sweeping through the plains...
I'll be mailing in my donation check to Planned Parenthood today, along with a clipping from today's paper showing the OK Senate overturning the veto.
And everyone who actually cares about children (you know, the part that comes after the fetus part) needs to be mailing in their checks to the Family & Children's Services Center, or Community Action Project (runs Tulsa's Head Start program) or the Children's Defense Fund, etc, etc. Did you know that April is National Child Abuse Prevention Month?
In 2005, over 13,300 Oklahoma kids were confirmed victims of child abuse and neglect. In 2004, 51 children DIED from abuse and neglect.
Oklahoma ranks in the bottom five states in overall child vulnerability and is the worst for child-abuse deaths based on population.
I could include more statistics...like how little tax money flows to the children of this state who are in desperate need of help. It seems our oh-so-wise legislature only wants to take over responsibility for your choices about abortion...they don't give a dam_ about what happens to the actual children who find themselves born into hideous circumstances.
But who knows better? The woman (or girl), who may be living with poverty, domestic violence, sexual abuse, drug addiction...or the prosperous white man in the suit sitting in the OK Senate?
Instead of forcing the woman (or pregnant 12 year old) to view a picture of the fetus, the doctors should be required to hand her a picture of her Senator with name, cell phone number and address...so she knows exactly where to go for help with the sh_t hits the fan.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
As a side note, has anyone ever pointed out that you come off somewhat arrogant? I mean, you act as if you were appointed (or annointed) the "debate referee", free to judge how an argument is being conducted and offering us a free education on how we can improve. [:)]
AOX points it out about every other day. I'm not trying to be arrogant, just trying to keep threads as discussion instead of descending in totality to "baby killer" vs. "freedom haters" or whatever. The alternative would be to ignore it (thread usually goes downhill) or join in (and how).
Generally, I've found if someone points out it is in danger of descending and explains why, it either dies or actually gets back on track. This is true for when I point it out, or when someone tells me I'm going over board. In this instance, I understand that most people are more emotionally involved than I am so I was trying to explain that as a matter of discussion either side's emotional arguments are not effective.
Perhaps I was stating the obvious, but trying to get back to logic is the only way I know how to respond to emotional arguments without responding in kind. I apologize if it comes off as arrogant. I assure you I do not think my own opinion is any more important than any other (well, ok. Honestly I think it is more important than some, but not most. [;)]).
Thanks just the same for point it out, keep me on the straight and narrow!
No, thank you. Thank you for being you and being there for us when we stray...[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Ok-la-homa! where the fundamentalist patriarchy comes sweeping through the plains...
I'll be mailing in my donation check to Planned Parenthood today, along with a clipping from today's paper showing the OK Senate overturning the veto.
And everyone who actually cares about children (you know, the part that comes after the fetus part) needs to be mailing in their checks to the Family & Children's Services Center, or Community Action Project (runs Tulsa's Head Start program) or the Children's Defense Fund, etc, etc. Did you know that April is National Child Abuse Prevention Month?
In 2005, over 13,300 Oklahoma kids were confirmed victims of child abuse and neglect. In 2004, 51 children DIED from abuse and neglect.
Oklahoma ranks in the bottom five states in overall child vulnerability and is the worst for child-abuse deaths based on population.
I could include more statistics...like how little tax money flows to the children of this state who are in desperate need of help. It seems our oh-so-wise legislature only wants to take over responsibility for your choices about abortion...they don't give a dam_ about what happens to the actual children who find themselves born into hideous circumstances.
But who knows better? The woman (or girl), who may be living with poverty, domestic violence, sexual abuse, drug addiction...or the prosperous white man in the suit sitting in the OK Senate?
Instead of forcing the woman (or pregnant 12 year old) to view a picture of the fetus, the doctors should be required to hand her a picture of her Senator with name, cell phone number and address...so she knows exactly where to go for help with the sh_t hits the fan.
Sore loser.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Ok-la-homa! where the fundamentalist patriarchy comes sweeping through the plains...
I'll be mailing in my donation check to Planned Parenthood today, along with a clipping from today's paper showing the OK Senate overturning the veto.
And everyone who actually cares about children (you know, the part that comes after the fetus part) needs to be mailing in their checks to the Family & Children's Services Center, or Community Action Project (runs Tulsa's Head Start program) or the Children's Defense Fund, etc, etc. Did you know that April is National Child Abuse Prevention Month?
In 2005, over 13,300 Oklahoma kids were confirmed victims of child abuse and neglect. In 2004, 51 children DIED from abuse and neglect.
Oklahoma ranks in the bottom five states in overall child vulnerability and is the worst for child-abuse deaths based on population.
I could include more statistics...like how little tax money flows to the children of this state who are in desperate need of help. It seems our oh-so-wise legislature only wants to take over responsibility for your choices about abortion...they don't give a dam_ about what happens to the actual children who find themselves born into hideous circumstances.
But who knows better? The woman (or girl), who may be living with poverty, domestic violence, sexual abuse, drug addiction...or the prosperous white man in the suit sitting in the OK Senate?
Instead of forcing the woman (or pregnant 12 year old) to view a picture of the fetus, the doctors should be required to hand her a picture of her Senator with name, cell phone number and address...so she knows exactly where to go for help with the sh_t hits the fan.
Nice attempt at trying to put a noble face on abortion. The facts from countless studies are that most abortions are performed (90%+) for convenience, or effectively as alternative birth control. Period.
At least be honest and cut the horse crap hyperbole.
quote:
At least be honest and cut the horse crap hyperbole.
Yes, let's. Since the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was legal, various states and pressure groups have tried to place barriers between women and their right to abortion. Suppose these increasingly onerous restrictions succeed and it becomes almost impossible to obtain the legal medical procedure. What then?
We'd return to the pre Roe v Wade days when women of means were able to obtain abortions simply by traveling somewhere it's legal. Meanwhile, the poor would have to resort to back alley 'coat hanger' abortions.
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
Yes, let's. Since the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was legal, various states and pressure groups have tried to place barriers between women and their right to abortion. Suppose these increasingly onerous restrictions succeed and it becomes almost impossible to obtain the legal medical procedure. What then?
Okay, I'll follow your deflection and refusal to accept well established statistics and respond to this tripe instead.
Are you attempting to limit the free speech of anti-abortion groups? If they're acting within the law they have every right to speak out and protest abortions, which is their Constitutional right.
Or are you attempting to tell us that laws can't be challenged? Just because a law exists one day doesn't mean it's forever set in stone. There is no inalienable right to an abortion in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, therefore it's a jurisprudential creation that can be challenged.
quote:
We'd return to the pre Roe v Wade days when women of means were able to obtain abortions simply by traveling somewhere it's legal. Meanwhile, the poor would have to resort to back alley 'coat hanger' abortions.
I'd suggest that if you want to cut down on the hyperbole you don't inject more into the conversation.
This bill isn't attempting to outlawing abortions. No one is going to get a "coat hanger" abortion because they looked at an ultrasound.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
This bill isn't attempting to outlawing abortions. No one is going to get a "coat hanger" abortion because they looked at an ultrasound.
My point is that this law is an attempt to place onerous restrictions on abortion, not to outlaw it, and if this one is successful in that it survives a court challenge, I think we can expect further restrictions.
But what if abortion were outlawed? What if the Supreme Court revisited Roe v Wade and overturned it? If killing the unborn is an immoral act, isn't criminalizing women who seek abortions equally immoral? If there are no small sins, there's only sin, then this choice offers an obvious dilemma.
We've discussed a wide variety of issues on this forum, including in-fill, eminent domain, and property rights. But when it comes to our most closely held property - our own bodies - the state sees fit to step in and tell us what we can and cannot do with them. Freedom of choice by implication requires the freedom to make poor choices. And for some of us, it's particularly galling to have the power and authority of the state enforcing some group's religious beliefs.
If the Bill of Rights is about the rights of one man (or one woman, for that matter) rather than majorities, then statistics are irrelevant. Majority beliefs are irrelevant.
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
My point is that this law is an attempt to place onerous restrictions on abortion, not to outlaw it, and if this one is successful in that it survives a court challenge, I think we can expect further restrictions.
But these processes (protests and legal challenges) are perfectly legal until and unless adjudicated to be unconstitutional. The same processes that allowed Roe v Wade to come to fruition are the same processes that are allowing people to challenge that law. There are no sacred immutable laws other than those guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and I hate to break it to you, there is not Constitutional "right" to an abortion.
quote:
But what if abortion were outlawed? What if the Supreme Court revisited Roe v Wade and overturned it? If killing the unborn is an immoral act, isn't criminalizing women who seek abortions equally immoral? If there are no small sins, there's only sin, then this choice offers an obvious dilemma.
I don't really see where you're going with this...
quote:
We've discussed a wide variety of issues on this forum, including in-fill, eminent domain, and property rights. But when it comes to our most closely held property - our own bodies - the state sees fit to step in and tell us what we can and cannot do with them. Freedom of choice by implication requires the freedom to make poor choices. And for some of us, it's particularly galling to have the power and authority of the state enforcing some group's religious beliefs.
The anti-abortion movement is NOT a religious movement. A good majority of religious people are anti-abortion, but I can direct you to forums where atheists are arguing against abortion as well. (Check out the James Randi forums where atheists share a variety of opinions about abortion)
I am an atheist and I think abortion is immoral (//%22http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108993%22)
Even more interesting is that in countries like the UK where abortion is perfectly legal, there's a drastic shortage of doctors who will perform the procedure now. Doctors are taking a stand an refusing to perform the procedure as they feel it's a violation of their oath.
Also, I half-heartedly agree with your more libertine stance on freedoms and choices, but when your freedom intersects and interferes with the life/freedom/happiness of another person the government (which is we the people) has every right to step in as a moderator.
quote:
If the Bill of Rights is about the rights of one man (or one woman, for that matter) rather than majorities, then statistics are irrelevant. Majority beliefs are irrelevant.
Again, there is no "right" to an abortion in the Bill of Rights, it's a creation of the modern judicial system. Whether that this piece of jurisprudence can or will be overturned by SCOTUS is another discussion all together.
I can tell you though if it is ever overturned, it will be because of scientific and medical knowledge not available at the time Roe v Wade was decided. In the original decision, the question of viability was never decided. The boundaries of viable life are getting pushed back further and further as neonatal medicine advances and that will no doubt influence the debate heavily.
Naturally, I differ with the above. The right-to-life movement is largely composed of religious groups and a few convenient atheists. They revealed their anti-science/anti-medicine approach to our legal system in the Terri Schiavo case. Politicians used it to pander to the religious right, just as they do with the right-to-life issue. You've said we should be looking at statistics, hard facts and figures, yet when it comes to informed medical opinion, the right-to-life advocates prefer ignorance.
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
Naturally, I differ with the above. The right-to-life movement is largely composed of religious groups and a few convenient atheists. They revealed their anti-science/anti-medicine approach to our legal system in the Terri Schiavo case. Politicians used it to pander to the religious right, just as they do with the right-to-life issue. You've said we should be looking at statistics, hard facts and figures, yet when it comes to informed medical opinion, the right-to-life advocates prefer ignorance.
So physicians, who have informed medical opinions, that are "right-to-life advocates" are ignorant? I will need to pass that tidbit of lunacy around the circle I run in.
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
Naturally, I differ with the above. The right-to-life movement is largely composed of religious groups and a few convenient atheists.
Do you have any evidence to back up this statement?
quote:
They revealed their anti-science/anti-medicine approach to our legal system in the Terri Schiavo case. Politicians used it to pander to the religious right, just as they do with the right-to-life issue. You've said we should be looking at statistics, hard facts and figures, yet when it comes to informed medical opinion, the right-to-life advocates prefer ignorance.
What statistics, hard facts and figures are you referring to? I'm open to reading anything you have to provide. What informed medical opinions am I ignoring, and to what part of this debate do they apply?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
Naturally, I differ with the above. The right-to-life movement is largely composed of religious groups and a few convenient atheists. They revealed their anti-science/anti-medicine approach to our legal system in the Terri Schiavo case. Politicians used it to pander to the religious right, just as they do with the right-to-life issue. You've said we should be looking at statistics, hard facts and figures, yet when it comes to informed medical opinion, the right-to-life advocates prefer ignorance.
So physicians, who have informed medical opinions, that are "right-to-life advocates" are ignorant? I will need to pass that tidbit of lunacy around the circle I run in.
Let me translate: You don't agree with me, so clearly you're ignorant or uninformed.
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
But what if abortion were outlawed? What if the Supreme Court revisited Roe v Wade and overturned it? If killing the unborn is an immoral act, isn't criminalizing women who seek abortions equally immoral?
No because the idea behind criminalizing such a act is to prevent killing the unborn children.
quote:
If there are no small sins, there's only sin, then this choice offers an obvious dilemma.
Society puts a value system on sin.Thats why the punishments vary from a measly fines all the way the to the death penalty. It doesn't make sense to have the same punishment for all crimes.
quote:
But when it comes to our most closely held property - our own bodies - the state sees fit to step in and tell us what we can and cannot do with them.
Your body stops being just your body when you have another human being inside it.
quote:
Freedom of choice by implication requires the freedom to make poor choices.
Can you show what constitutional amendment guarantees this right?
quote:
And for some of us, it's particularly galling to have the power and authority of the state enforcing some group's religious beliefs.
States enforce moral beliefs all the time,Stealing,murder,lying in a court of law and other laws are legislated moral beliefs.
Jamesrage "Your body stops being just your body when you have another human being inside it."
Perhaps the best statement in this thread. Well said.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Well, I think its absolutely barbaric to rip apart an unborn child who is completely innocent. In my opinion, such reeks of murder.
Well, as long as you are not one of those creepy dudes that hangs out around the clinics and going into histrionics, then you're ok.
Such conversations have been waged for years. Seems nothing have changed. Women's bodies and the right to decide for themselves continues to be taken away from them. Typically, the asserted right to decide for a woman what she should do, only demonstrates a shielded ignorant perspective. There are many reasons why pregancies need to be terminated. Reasons which one wouldn't wish for anyone to have to deal with. They are personal and painful. Knee jerk reactions to what is not fully understood doesn't help. Then again, those that knee jerk are more than likely incapable of understanding. Or worse, of not caring enough to inform themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Robinson
Such conversations have been waged for years. Seems nothing have changed. Women's bodies and the right to decide for themselves continues to be taken away from them. Typically, the asserted right to decide for a woman what she should do, only demonstrates a shielded ignorant perspective. There are many reasons why pregancies need to be terminated. Reasons which one wouldn't wish for anyone to have to deal with. They are personal and painful. Knee jerk reactions to what is not fully understood doesn't help. Then again, those that knee jerk are more than likely incapable of understanding. Or worse, of not caring enough to inform themselves.
So your point is the overwhelming number of house reps and senators that trounced Henry's non-knee jerk reaction through veto were knee jerking when they passed the bill? Oh, and they are not caring to inform themselves as well.
BTW, tell me again how the bill deprives a woman of her precious, constitutitonal right to choose?
Guido - the bill denies no one of her choice. It does, however, dictated a totally unneeded medical procedure in the hopes of coercing the choice the legislature believes is the moral one. And, as most people argue against abortion on religious grounds - it is the legislatures attempt to force their coerce their religious beliefs on others. I'm generally against legislation attempting to dictate morality.
IP - While there are many people who logically argue against abortion from an agnostic point of view - the vast majority of people and groups that oppose abortion do so on religious grounds.
But in spite of this new bill, does anyone think it will have any effect on the abortion rate in Oklahoma? Perhaps more to the point, what would be more effective to limit the number of abortions: this argument or one about sex education or the availability of alternative choices (ie. early adoption or counseling) Oklahoma? For some reason the "teenagers don't have sex" lessons of today aren't working any better than they ever have.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Guido - the bill denies no one of her choice. It does, however, dictated a totally unneeded medical procedure in the hopes of coercing the choice the legislature believes is the moral one.
Well CF, there you go again with the arrogance. Unless you are a physician, on what basis can you blanketly assert something is an "unneeded medical procedure?" Indeed, there are stories such as the discovery of twins during a pre-ab ultrasound that made this "unneeded medical procedure" fairly damned useful to that woman who based on that information decided not to terminate the pregnancy.
To Guido's point... just over 21 years ago my wife was pregnant and started bleeding. We went to he OB/Gyn and it was determined that she was having what he called threaded miscarriage. For whatever reason he requested an ultrasound before proceeding with a DNC. As my wife and I were consoling each other and the nurse was carrying out the ultrasound, she found a heartbeat. It was in fact a twin to the fetus that was being miscarried. My daughter will be 21 this Friday. Absent this additional procedure we would have aborted her. Even today I cannot think about this event and not become emotional.... My daughter will here the story of the blessing she is for the 21st time on Friday. And I will weep again as I do everytime I tell her.....
Its preposterous for the Legislature to dictate what information a woman needs to make an "informed decision."
Do our elected officials believe that a pregnant OB/GYN seeking an abortion, a doctor with more medical training than 99% of the Legislature, needs Rep. Sally Kern telling her what she needs to make an "informed decision?"
Not being rude nor arrogant, just telling it how it is. In the performance of an abortion nothing indicates that an ultrasound and a description of the fetus to the mother is medically necessary. You need neither of those things to abort a fetus. It hasn't been needed the prior 30 years and isn't needed anywhere else.
I understand that in rare instances, as sited, it will have an effect. People considering abortions for medical reasons are advised to get ultrasounds as bokworker pointed out. This law would not effect that.
But the entire point of this law is to discourage abortions. That's why its on the books. Not for medical reasons or the safety of the mother.
At lest, that is my understanding of it. If the fact of the matter is otherwise, let me know. But every statement by legislators is about respecting life, not about medical need.
I'm assuming the State is foisting the cost of these ultra-sounds upon the "uninformed" woman? With no ability to "inform" herself through other, less expensive, means? And no ability to "opt-out" of incurring this "medically necessary" cost?
Can someone tell me of another elective medical procedure that is Legislatively mandated?
quote:
Can someone tell me of another elective medical procedure that is Legislatively mandated?
You mean, other than the manner of the delivery of the DEATH PENALTY via lethal injection? See, 22 O.S. § 1014. Interesting isn't?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Not being rude nor arrogant, just telling it how it is. In the performance of an abortion nothing indicates that an ultrasound and a description of the fetus to the mother is medically necessary. You need neither of those things to abort a fetus. It hasn't been needed the prior 30 years and isn't needed anywhere else.
I understand that in rare instances, as sited, it will have an effect. People considering abortions for medical reasons are advised to get ultrasounds as bokworker pointed out. This law would not effect that.
But the entire point of this law is to discourage abortions. That's why its on the books. Not for medical reasons or the safety of the mother.
At lest, that is my understanding of it. If the fact of the matter is otherwise, let me know. But every statement by legislators is about respecting life, not about medical need.
My understanding of the entire ultrasound issue is the improvement of providing informed consent to women contemplating abortion.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08041704.html
I guess in your opinion having informed consent, which in this connection is the option to view an ultrasound that may or may not change the mind of a woman, may be medically unnecessary. However, what constitutes "informed consent" is not necessarily for you or I to decide. Our legislature has frequently codified what is required for informed consent--even for lawyers. See, Rules of Professional Responsibility, 1.0(e); 63 O.S. § 1-738.4 (Prior Abortion Consent statute). As I pointed out, there are those that have changed their mind as a result of the ultrasound. Is that such a horrible thing to you?
As far as every statement by legislators being the respect of life, do you have a citation for that?
quote:
Originally posted by Robinson
Such conversations have been waged for years. Seems nothing have changed. Women's bodies and the right to decide for themselves continues to be taken away from them. Typically, the asserted right to decide for a woman what she should do, only demonstrates a shielded ignorant perspective. There are many reasons why pregancies need to be terminated. Reasons which one wouldn't wish for anyone to have to deal with. They are personal and painful. Knee jerk reactions to what is not fully understood doesn't help. Then again, those that knee jerk are more than likely incapable of understanding. Or worse, of not caring enough to inform themselves.
As has been stated time and time again and attested to by the vast majority of studies and statistics, the life of the mother, rape and incest are numerically a tiny fraction of abortions performed in the US every year.
Again, what is it that I am uninformed about? Ed W touted statistics and science that I'm ignoring, but never bothered to back up, and now you. What exactly am I missing?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Guido - the bill denies no one of her choice. It does, however, dictated a totally unneeded medical procedure in the hopes of coercing the choice the legislature believes is the moral one. And, as most people argue against abortion on religious grounds - it is the legislatures attempt to force their coerce their religious beliefs on others. I'm generally against legislation attempting to dictate morality.
IP - While there are many people who logically argue against abortion from an agnostic point of view - the vast majority of people and groups that oppose abortion do so on religious grounds.
But in spite of this new bill, does anyone think it will have any effect on the abortion rate in Oklahoma? Perhaps more to the point, what would be more effective to limit the number of abortions: this argument or one about sex education or the availability of alternative choices (ie. early adoption or counseling) Oklahoma? For some reason the "teenagers don't have sex" lessons of today aren't working any better than they ever have.
I don't disagree with you, I just hate when people make blanketed statements and I chose to point out the obvious error. Arguments can be made both theistically and materialistically and it's important to bear that in mind.
No, I have no citations. Interviews and evening news broadcasts are the only areas that I have heard any legislator speak on the issue - i should have caveatted "that I have heard."
I'm not sure where our difference lies on the purpose of this bill. Do you disagree that the sole purpose of the bill is to discourage abortions? And the reason they want to discourage abortions is because it is against their moral, usually religiously based, code. Why not be upfront about the goal of this legislation?
All the other discussion is just so much noise. Ultrasound is not medically needed to abort a fetus. Informed consent does not require an ultrasound nor a description of the fetus. Informed consent would require informing the woman that this procedure will terminate the fetus inside of her and may have XY&Z complications associated with it (as they have done for 30 years). If anything, I'm sure the consent forms do more than necessary for the simple reason that medical consent forms always do.
This absolutely gives the woman more information. So would having them watch a cancer biopsy or seeing the culture results from a pap smear. But THIS information is design solely to draw an emotional response to influence the decision - NOT for medical purposes. Why does everyone pretend that isn't the case? Are women too stupid to realize what a fetus is?
You think abortions are immoral and should be illegal. Thus you are pleased that the legislature passed a law to discourage abortions by forcing the prospective mother to go through an ultrasound and description before she can have an abortion.
Why not just come out and say "I dislike abortions and think we should do anything we can to dissuade them." I can disagree with that, but can't really argue against it. Why the guise of medical necessity, informed consent or other tangents?
Do you see what my grievance is? I don't think any of the medical need or informed consent junk is honest at all. It is an after thought to very superficially avoid the appearance of legislating against abortion wholesale. But that's the goal, so just go for it.
"I don't like abortion, I think this will cut back on it so I am in favor of the legislation. " There, done and done.
See what I'm getting at in my rambles?
[edit]
IP - I understand that secular arguments can be made against abortion. My pet peeve in the debate is weak secular arguments supplanting a simple belief statement. Which, IMHO, most arguments on abortion are.
In the long run the anti-abortion crowd will probably win. Simply because they seem to care more than anyone else. I'd rather other options be taken (sex ed, adoption, etc.) and have not been personally effected by nor anticipate being effected by an abortion... so at the end of the day either way I have no real effect on my life.
Interestingly enough, European countries that don't offer the religious indignation to abortion we do have much lower abortion rates. This article offers a cold look at world wide abortions (46 million):
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html
The legality of abortion is not correlated to it's frequency, so this entire debate is really more pointless than it first appears
[/edit]
quote:
Originally posted by CoffeeBean
I'm assuming the State is foisting the cost of these ultra-sounds upon the "uninformed" woman? With no ability to "inform" herself through other, less expensive, means? And no ability to "opt-out" of incurring this "medically necessary" cost?
Can someone tell me of another elective medical procedure that is Legislatively mandated?
Look to the current discussions on the cervical cancer vaccine. Some states are looking to make them mandatory.
Guido -
Under Oklahoma law, the test for informed consent is entirely subjective. See Scott v. Bradford, 1979 OK 165 (the relative inquiry being what the patient would have wanted to know, not what a "reasonable" physician would have disclosed.)
In Spencer By and Through Spencer v. Seikel, 1987 OK 75, the Oklahoma Supreme Court specifically rejected the intorduction of expert medical testimony in cases of informed consent "because what is material to a patient's decision is subjective to each patient, objective or general professional standards are ineffective to determine the scope of the physician's duty to obtain informed consent in a given case."
The Legislature is now telling us what we need to know to be "informed." This could not be more contrary to well-settled Oklahoma law.
CF, not to pick apart your analysis of the study, but where did "religious indignation" factor into their analysis? Or was that your take on the numbers?
quote:
Are women too stupid to realize what a fetus is?
No, but who hasn't heard the argument that since they aren't viable they aren't really alive yet, even though SCOTUS never reached a decision on that issue.
I remember our first ultrasound last year at 9 weeks when we heard the heart beat and watched our daughter doing what our doctor called the 9 week shuffle...
It's a little more difficult to justify killing something that you see moving around, when you can watch the heart pumping blood, and hear the heart beat.
Out of site, out of mind I suppose.
The study I linked too was removed from my religious ramblings, sorry if that was not clear. I found that link interesting in that it seems to take care to remain removed from the issues, so I just kind of stuck it in. Sorry again.
And yes, I agree. It would be more difficult aborting a fetus that you watch and hear described. That's my whole point, THE whole point of this law is to force doctors to make that emotional argument to their patients (you are killing a heart beat, living breathing gift from god if you do this - love State of Oklahoma). Medical need, consent and every other argument is just fluff... the POINT is that they are trying to personify the fetus and make the choice harder for the woman.
For better or worse, that's the point. NOT medical safety or the other reasons. Not sure why you are the only one who seems willing to own up to that fact or even why it is something worth dancing around. Hence my frustration.
quote:
Originally posted by CoffeeBean
Guido -
Under Oklahoma law, the test for informed consent is entirely subjective. See Scott v. Bradford, 1979 OK 165 (the relative inquiry being what the patient would have wanted to know, not what a "reasonable" physician would have disclosed.)
In Spencer By and Through Spencer v. Seikel, 1987 OK 75, the Oklahoma Supreme Court specifically rejected the intorduction of expert medical testimony in cases of informed consent "because what is material to a patient's decision is subjective to each patient, objective or general professional standards are ineffective to determine the scope of the physician's duty to obtain informed consent in a given case."
The Legislature is now telling us what we need to know to be "informed." This could not be more contrary to well-settled Oklahoma law.
Oklahoma's legislature prescribes legal duties owed by legal and health professionals all the time. For example, did you read the statute I cited CF re: informed consent and abortion BEFORE this statute? This statute, which is actually 63 O.S. § 1-738.2 states:
B. Except in the case of a medical emergency, consent to an abortion is voluntary and informed if and only if:
1. a. not less than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the performance of the abortion, the woman is told the following, by telephone or in person, by the physician who is to perform the abortion, or by a referring physician, or by an agent of either physician:
(1) the name of the physician who will perform the abortion,(2) the medical risks associated with the particular abortion procedure to be employed,(3) the probable gestational age of the unborn child at the time the abortion is to be performed,(4) the medical risks associated with carrying her child to term, and (5) that ultrasound imaging and heart tone monitoring that enable the pregnant woman to view her unborn child or listen to the heartbeat of the unborn child are available to the pregnant woman. The physician or agent of the physician shall inform the pregnant woman that the web site and printed materials described in Section 1-738.3 of this title, contain phone numbers and addresses for facilities that offer such services at no cost,
Plainly the legislature can, and in fact did, set forth numerous, minimum requirements of information a physician must give a pregnant woman contemplating abortion.
As for your case law, while I appreciate the effort to make this debate about law, such is absolutely meaningless because the legislature is absolutely premitted to impose statutory duties on those persons it licenses.
It is worth noting that in Spencer, though, the Court made the following observation that is very relevant to my position: "...[A]lthough a woman's right to an abortion is fundamental, it is not necessarily unqualified; it must be considered against compelling state interests in regulating abortions." In Oklahoma, the legislature's compelling state interest pertaining to this bill, as I see it, is providing a woman considering abortion as much information as possible. Thus, the new bill appears consistent with Oklahoma jurisprudence.
Guido -
The ultrasound has no redeeming medical value whatsoever. What additional information does the ultrasound provide that is not otherwise available to the woman?
I appreciate the desire to fully inform women about their choice, but that only makes my point - it's their choice, and the scope of information necessary to make that choice is not the province of the Legislature.
Let me ask it this way - if the Legislature determined that women would be better informed of their choice if forced to sit with a dead fetus for 24 hrs in advance of the procedure, would you agree?
quote:
Originally posted by CoffeeBean
Guido -
The ultrasound has no redeeming medical value whatsoever. What additional information does the ultrasound provide that is not otherwise available to the woman?
I appreciate the desire to fully inform women about their choice, but that only makes my point - it's their choice, and the scope of information necessary to make that choice is not the province of the Legislature.
Let me ask it this way - if the Legislature determined that women would be better informed of their choice if forced to sit with a dead fetus for 24 hrs in advance of the procedure, would you agree?
I have already answered the question about the usefulness of the ultrasound in responding to CF. Given your silence as to the issues I raised in responding to your other positions, I think we are through.
Guido -
Do not mistake silence for concession. The reason I did not address your statutory argument had nothing to do with its merit; quite the opposite.
You cannot hold up a never-before litigated statute and claim "Ah-hah, here is evidence of what the Legislature can do!" That simply defies fundamental civis.
For example, see 21 O.S. Sec. 901, titled "Crimes against Blasphemy." Did the Legislature pass it? You bet it did - way back in 1910. Is it still on the books? Absolutely. Would it ever stand up in Court if challenged? Not a snowballs chance in hell - not even in Oklahoma.
So, while I appreciate reference to never-before litigated statutes, I prefer actual case law.
That said, I do agree with you and the Spencer Court that abortions are both a fundamental right of the woman, and subject to regulation. But therein lies our difference - you believe in forcing a woman to watch an ultrasound while I perfer giving her that option.
And since I answered your question, why don't you answer mine: If the legislature decided that forcing woman to sit with a dead fetus during the 24 hrs prior to a procedure would better inform her choice, would you agree? How about just physically touching a dead fetus?
I don't mean to be overly gruesome, but all these "things" would fall under the rubric of providing more and better information.
The question is - how much is too much, and when can the woman exercise her right to say enough is enough?
quote:
The question is - how much is too much, and when can the woman exercise her right to say enough is enough?
This is a great question, and I think legislation like this is drafted in response to the fact that getting an abortion appears, from most available information, to be a detached, overly sanitized process where little if any information is exchanged during the procedure about what exactly is taking place.
And as has been demonstrated time and again through numerous independent studies, most 90%+ abortions are performed for convenience or backup birth control. In fact, more than 50% weren't using birth control AT ALL. I would imagine that any thinking, compassionate individual would have no issue with putting in place measures such as an ultrasound that would help to decrease abortions.
What happened to demanding people act responsibly and not get pregnant in the first place? Why do we concern ourselves with whether this causes mental distress to the only party in this matter who acted irresponsibly?
If this law even keeps a handful of people from getting pregnant because they know at some point they're going to come face to face with their child before they have them vacuumed out, then it would be a success.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Robinson
Such conversations have been waged for years. Seems nothing have changed. Women's bodies and the right to decide for themselves continues to be taken away from them. Typically, the asserted right to decide for a woman what she should do, only demonstrates a shielded ignorant perspective. There are many reasons why pregancies need to be terminated. Reasons which one wouldn't wish for anyone to have to deal with. They are personal and painful. Knee jerk reactions to what is not fully understood doesn't help. Then again, those that knee jerk are more than likely incapable of understanding. Or worse, of not caring enough to inform themselves.
So your point is the overwhelming number of house reps and senators that trounced Henry's non-knee jerk reaction through veto were knee jerking when they passed the bill? Oh, and they are not caring to inform themselves as well.
BTW, tell me again how the bill deprives a woman of her precious, constitutitonal right to choose?
When the abortion arguement arises, there is a stereotype of who receive an abortion. Not all pregnancies are meant to be - and having to decide between a wife and the fetus that is killing the wife is not an issue for anyone but the people involved.
She was crawling from the bed to the bathroom before she accepted the fact that the miscarriage they told her would happen didn't. Then here only option was to have the abortion.
Knee Jerk reactions disregard so much.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
It's redundant.
Oklahoma Planned Parenthood does not provide abortions and women already receive an ultra sounds prior to the abortion to determine how advanced the pregancy is.
With this in mind, what is the point of the bill? What's next, are they going to require in vitro fertilization patients to look at fertilized eggs through a microscope? It seems like this bill is based on us vs. them mentality, and discounts any real facts.
So many canards, so little time...
quote:
Originally posted by Robinson
Such conversations have been waged for years. Seems nothing have changed. Women's bodies and the right to decide for themselves continues to be taken away from them.
What the hell are you talking about? Who's keeping anyone from getting an abortion now?
quote:
Typically, the asserted right to decide for a woman what she should do, only demonstrates a shielded ignorant perspective. There are many reasons why pregancies need to be terminated. Reasons which one wouldn't wish for anyone to have to deal with. They are personal and painful.
Read the statistic fella, the vast majority fall into discretionary/personal choice categories. I can't help you if scientific studies aren't your cup of tea.
Speaking of painful, how does scrambling your brains or vacuuming body parts sound?
quote:
Knee jerk reactions to what is not fully understood doesn't help. Then again, those that knee jerk are more than likely incapable of understanding. Or worse, of not caring enough to inform themselves.
Please, again, for the third time now. INFORM US. What information am I missing.
quote:
When the abortion arguement arises, there is a stereotype of who receive an abortion.
It's not a "stereotype." It's called statistics.
quote:
Not all pregnancies are meant to be - and having to decide between a wife and the fetus that is killing the wife is not an issue for anyone but the people involved.
She was crawling from the bed to the bathroom before she accepted the fact that the miscarriage they told her would happen didn't. Then here only option was to have the abortion.
Less than 3% of all abortions are for instances of the health of the mother.
quote:
Knee Jerk reactions disregard so much.
As does amplifying statistical outliers and making the extreme minority case appear to be the majority.
My question is this...given the fact that we are all little fetuses running around, just a little more grown up (some not so much), what is wrong with wanting to be sure we got this one right?
I mean, this seems like the perfect start to a great history lesson...
Little Jimmy,
Once upon a time, there was a great civilization, who for some strange reason started aborting millions and millions and then billions and billions of their babies. (Oops, sorry, fetuses)
When "life", no matter how helpless and easy it is to terminate, becomes a "choice", then we have failed miserably to move forward as a people. I would ask you to read about ancient civilizations who found it acceptable to kill themselves off. (Aztecs, Romans) We condemn the Chinese for committing female infanticide...but if it is purely the mom's choice, then why would it be wrong? I know why we think it is wrong, it is because it is demented thinking! We just don't want to say we are committing these atrocities...only communist China has those kinds of problems. Read this...
Gendercide (//%22http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html%22)
"governments and other actors can be just as guilty of mass killing by neglect or tacit encouragement" By skirting the real issue, i.e. we are killing our babies off, and by providing FREE abortions, we are committing "tacit encouragement".
The Phoenicians and Carthaginians sacrificed their infants...According to Diodorus Siculus:
"There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire." The only difference is, instead of trying to appease some stupid god, we are simply trying to appease ourselves. The sacrificial medium is the same.
What will the history books say? Hmmm?
My wife is pregnant, and she is not carrying around anything but a baby. If someone ran into her and killed that "thing" in her belly, they would be guilty of MANslaughter.
The main difference between the two schools of thought is this, one wants the woman to be able to CHOOSE if she wants to have the BABY...enough with the terminology. (My patella is still my knee cap.)
Barring medical nightmares, (which do occur)the only right a woman has is to stay out of that bed if she doesn't want the thing. That is the choice we all have. Of course this is all assuming you had the conversation about the birds & the bees.
This isn't a casino...it's life...and I know here in Oklahoma it is hard to tell the difference but you don't get to keep pulling the handle till you finally get what you want, your perfect world. We have to live with our choices and move on, bad or not.
Flame me all you want, I wont budge...as a race, we have no business accepting the practice of aborting our future generations for convenience.
(Assuming we agree that the vast majority of them are for that reason)
I agree with you CF, the legislation is silly. For those of us who would rather not see it happen except for by medical necessity only, we need to just state it and put it up for election and stop dancing around the "issue" by pretending we have some other motives.
That article is far from biased btw...Unintended Pregnancies? Ha! You mean, I didn't know that would happen if he did that to me dad, honest! The article sympathizes with people AFTER they have made the mistake. I sympathize with them too, but just like a guy paying child support, I feel sorry for him for about 1.7 seconds. Should have listened to grandma I guess if mom and dad aren't telling you the consequences. For that link I get to post one too! World Summary of World-wide Abortions (//%22http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp337sd.html%22)
They show a total of 756,695,000 REPORTED abortions and 944,935,000 actually expected.
Oh, and for context, I am AGAINST the death penalty. That may help you see my motives CF.
[;)][:D]
MrHaskell and IP: I do not think I have ever read such well reasoned and articulated positions on this issue.
It sure beats the sh*t out of the "It's my body, it's my choice" mantra.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
MrHaskell and IP: I do not think I have ever read such well reasoned and articulated positions on this issue.
It sure beats the sh*t out of the "It's my body, it's my choice" mantra.
Thanks, I never really got that argument or "mantra"...we lock people up for wanting to commit suicide, we need to lock them up for infanticide too. Poor kids...
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&db=Oklahoma&casemasterid=2354921)
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.
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
Quote from: Moderator on August 18, 2009, 04:24:55 PM
May as well use this chance to remind people to remain civil . . .
- Moderator
You giving odds?
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.
Quote from: pmcalk on August 18, 2009, 07:45:44 PM
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.
Quote from: pmcalk on August 18, 2009, 07:45:44 PM
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?
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.
And onto the higher court.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20090819_298_0_OLHMIY994719 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20090819_298_0_OLHMIY994719)
I love that we continue to throw money at this.
QuoteSo far, the state has spent about $67,000 defending the measure, attorney general's spokesman Charlie Price said.
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.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 19, 2009, 05:50:13 PM
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.
More bad stuff for future economic development....
Okla. House overrides abortion restrictions vetoeshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042603655.html
" Each of the vetoed bills passed the 48-member Senate 35-11, one vote shy of the three-quarters majority needed to override. Anti-abortion legislation supporter Sen. Mike Mazzei, R-Tulsa, was absent when both bills received final passage.
Tony Lauinger, state chairman of the anti-abortion group Oklahomans for Life and vice president of the National Right to Life Committee, said Mazzei is expected to be in the Senate chamber Tuesday. "
Lauinger is a stupid prick. Everyone now will know....Oklahoma is off limits.
Governor Henry's remarks are probably correct. This bill will likely be tied up in the courts for a while.
This state never ceases to amaze me.
Senate overrides Henry's veto:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=17&articleid=20100427_17_0_OKLAHO771360
The Onion make fun and almost gets the Oklahoma capital's location correct.
QuoteOklahoma Doctors Can Legally Pretend To Give Abortions
http://www.theonion.com/video/oklahoma-doctors-can-legally-pretend-to-give-abort,19425/ (http://www.theonion.com/video/oklahoma-doctors-can-legally-pretend-to-give-abort,19425/)
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/20-week-abortion-ban-nebraska-oklahoma-fetus-feel/story?id=13116214 (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/20-week-abortion-ban-nebraska-oklahoma-fetus-feel/story?id=13116214)
QuoteDanielle Deaver was 22 weeks pregnant when her water broke and doctors gave her a devastating prognosis: With undeveloped lungs, the baby likely would never survive outside the womb, and because all the amniotic fluid had drained, the tiny growing fetus slowly would be crushed by the uterus walls.
"What we learned from the perinatologist was that because there was no cushion, she couldn't move her arms and legs because of contractures," said Deaver, a 34-year-old nurse from Grand Isle, Neb. "And her face and head would be deformed because the uterus pushed down so hard."
After having had three miscarriages, Deaver and her husband, Robb Deaver, looked for every medical way possible to save the baby. Deaver's prior pregnancy ended the same way at 15 weeks, and doctors induced her to spare the pain.
But this time, when the couple sought the same procedure, doctors could not legally help them.
Just one month earlier, Nebraska had enacted the nation's first fetal pain legislation, banning abortions after 20 weeks gestation. So the Deavers had to wait more than a week to deliver baby Elizabeth, who died after just 15 minutes.
"They could do nothing to make it better but tell us to wait, which made it worse," Danielle Deaver said. "Every time I felt movement, I was terrified she was hurting and trying to push the uterus away from her."
This goes alongside availability and acceptance of birth control in these countries.
Abortions Are More Common in Countries that Outlaw Them
Quote
Abortion rates are higher in countries where the procedure is illegal and nearly half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe, with the vast majority in developing countries, a new study concludes.
Experts couldn't say whether more liberal laws led to fewer procedures, but said good access to birth control in those countries resulted in fewer unwanted pregnancies.
The global abortion rate remained virtually unchanged from 2003 to 2008, at about 28 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44, a total of about 43.8 million abortions, according to the study. The rate had previously been dropping since 1995.
About 47,000 women died from unsafe abortions in 2008, and another 8.5 million women had serious medical complications. Almost all unsafe abortions were in developing countries, where family planning and contraceptive programs have mostly levelled off.
"An abortion is actually a very simple and safe procedure," said Gilda Sedgh, a senior researcher at the U.S.-based Guttmacher Institute, designated by the World Health Organization as an official Collaborating Center for Reproductive Health. "All of these deaths and complications are easily avoidable," said Sedgh, the study's lead author.
Sedgh and colleagues concluded that the proportion of unsafe abortions rose from 44 percent in 1995 to 49 percent in 2008, the last year for which statistics were available and studied in the report. Sedgh acknowledged it was difficult to get an accurate number for unsafe abortions in particular and described their estimates as modest.
They used sources including official statistics, national surveys, and hospital records. To account for unreported abortions, they made adjustments and relied on information from other kinds of studies, expert assessments, and surveys of women.
The research was published Thursday in the journal, Lancet.
Abortion rates were lowest in Western Europe — 12 per 1,000 — and highest in Eastern Europe — 43 per 1,000. The rate in North America was 19 per 1,000. Sedgh said she and colleagues found a link between higher abortion rates and regions with more restrictive legislation, such as in Latin America and Africa. They also found that 95 to 97 percent of abortions in those regions were unsafe.
The authors defined unsafe abortion as any procedure done by people lacking needed skills or in places that don't meet minimal medical standards. Sedgh said some women in Africa resort to using broken soda bottles or taking strong doses of medicines or herbal drugs to induce abortions.
"It is precisely where abortion is illegal that it must become safer," wrote Beverly Winikoff and Wendy R. Sheldon of the Gynuity Health Projects in New York, in an accompanying commentary.
Experts said increasing birth control options for women in poor countries, like providing long-acting implants, would make a big difference.
"Wherever we have made better contraception available in the countries where we work, hundreds of women will walk hours to get it," said Dana Hovig, CEO of Marie Stopes International, a family planning organization. He was not connected to the study.
Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/19/abortions-are-more-common-in-countries-that-outlaw-them/#ixzz1jvxcau77
Snagged from Nox's FB post.
Abortion law blocked by judge
http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Abortion-law-blocked-by-judge/SzqQ1tkUckOwgi0lJJ_h8g.cspx (http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Abortion-law-blocked-by-judge/SzqQ1tkUckOwgi0lJJ_h8g.cspx)
QuoteOKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - An Oklahoma County judge has permanently blocked a state law that requires women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before prior to the abortion.
District Judge Brian Dixon handed down an order Wednesday ruling that the law is unconstitutional and unenforceable. The order says the statute passed in 2010 is an unconstitutional special law because it addresses only patients and physicians concerning abortions and not other medical care.
Enforcement of the law has been blocked since shortly after Nova Health Systems, operator of Reproductive Services of Tulsa, challenged its constitutionality in May 2010. It would have forced a woman seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound, have the image placed in front of her and then hear it described in detail.
Quote from: Townsend on March 28, 2012, 05:31:59 PM
Snagged from Nox's FB post.
Abortion law blocked by judge
http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Abortion-law-blocked-by-judge/SzqQ1tkUckOwgi0lJJ_h8g.cspx (http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Abortion-law-blocked-by-judge/SzqQ1tkUckOwgi0lJJ_h8g.cspx)
Okay, so I'm slow at getting it over here. ;D
Quotehttp://wonkette.com/503128/oklahoma-state-senate-bill-employers-aint-gotta-insure-contraceptives-because-women-are-meant-to-be-mommies
CALL OF MATERNAL DUTY: BLECCH OPS 3:29 PM FEBRUARY 26, 2013
OKLAHOMA STATE SENATE BILL: EMPLOYERS AIN'T GOTTA INSURE CONTRACEPTIVES BECAUSE WOMEN ARE MEANT TO BE MOMMIES
Oh, hey, here's a new twist on an old story! You already know how having to pay for insurance coverage for birth control is a violation of an employer's sacred right to tell employees how to live, but a genius state Senator in Oklahoma, Clark Jolley (R-Not All That Jolly) has just placed himself in the race for Wonkette Legislative Shitmuffin of the Year by introducing yet another bill that that would allow employers to opt out of covering slut pills.
Read more at http://wonkette.com/503128/oklahoma-state-senate-bill-employers-aint-gotta-insure-contraceptives-because-women-are-meant-to-be-mommies#RkqId3oDFTsDsrvY.99
The opt-out isn't a new idea, but the justification is truly novel: Jolley says he introduced the bill at the request of a constituent, Dr. Dominic Pedulla, of Oklahoma City. Pedulla is a cardiologist, but bills himself as "a natural family planning medical consultant and women's health researcher" and contends that contraception "suppresses and disables" women's true nature:
"Part of their identity is the potential to be a mother," Pedulla said. "They are being asked to suppress and radically contradict part of their own identity, and if that wasn't bad enough, they are being asked to poison their bodies."
We know we are somewhat stepping on the line of regular commenter Callyson here, but, Oh, for love's sake.
Dr. Pedulla complained to Sen. Jolley after he found that all small group health plans in Oklahoma required coverage for contraception and sterilization. Rather than pointing out to Pedulla that the insurance plans did not require that he personally get sterilized, despite the obvious benefits to the state and humanity, Jolley instead said, hey, you know what? People with dumb religious convictions should be allowed to make their employees suffer for them! So he introduced this idiotic bill, which passed the Senate Business and Commerce Committee without debate last week, and will now go to the full state Senate.
In a masterful stroke of Wingnut Logic, Pedulla presented as evidence the argument that "Studies show that women using contraceptives consider pregnancy more unwanted than wanted," which is clearly a result of The Pill making ladies think crazy anti-pregnancy thoughts, not merely the sort of thing that a person who already doesn't want to have a baby might say.
Critics of the legislation pointed out that women who have a harder time getting access to birth control are probablyu more likely to experience unwanted pregnancies and thus seek abortions, and then, realizing that they were saying this in goddamned Oklahoma, decided to just drink and pound their heads against their desks.
[Tulsa World via DailyKos]
Read more at http://wonkette.com/503128/oklahoma-state-senate-bill-employers-aint-gotta-insure-contraceptives-because-women-are-meant-to-be-mommies#RkqId3oDFTsDsrvY.99
(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/89/249270409_664e6841fa.jpg)