Oklahoma REALLY doesn't want Women to have Abortions

[bodecea]

it doesn't matter if (I was wrong and )more people are against abortion, it is still legal and the women who recieve an abortion have right to privacy.

What about the man's rights?

How do you suggest a man's rights be exercised in these cases. I'm interested.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Anything that prevents the killing of unborn babies, I'm in favor of. Short of killing abortion docotrs. They'll be judged by someone far greater than myself as will all those that murder the innocent.

So, you think abortion is murder? Then you would support laws convicting anyone involved in an abortion of murder, right?

Yes I think the killing of an unborn child is equivalent to murder. I support laws that would make abortions illegal, except in rare cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger. And yes I'd expect if said laws were passed then those involved in illegal abortions should be tried in a court of law.

 

[Immanuel]

it's not a baby any more than an egg is a chicken.

but if that's your opinion, fine... but you and your breatheren need to stop imposing YOUR OPINIONS on the rest of us.

So keep your harassment to yourself.... abortion is LEGAL... and the majority of people support the right to choose.

Sucks that you can't control everyone else's religious beliefs, eh?

Are you of the opinion that we should not have any laws? Because every law on the books is the impositions of someone's morals on other people.

Immie

In our country laws are based on civil rights. If you are violating someone's civil rights it is probably illegal.

And everyone of those Civil Rights is someone's idea of morality. Regardless of the law, it is based upon someone's idea of moral living. You may or may not agree with the morality of those who made the law and got it passed, but they wrote it because they believed it was the moral thing to do.

Immie

 

[veritas]

You mean since a man doesn't have to carry the baby for nine months then he has no rights to the child?

No. TFB. When your body can get pregnant, then we can talk.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

it doesn't matter if (I was wrong and )more people are against abortion, it is still legal and the women who recieve an abortion have right to privacy.

What about the man's rights?

How do you suggest a man's rights be exercised in these cases. I'm interested.

I think the man should have the right to help decide the fate of the unborn child. Look at the two situations and see what you think.


Situation 1)
A man and a woman discover that she is pregnant. She wants the baby but he does not. She continues through with the pregnancy despite his continuous requests for her to abort the fetus. Due to whatever beliefs of her and her family, she also wants him to be part of the child’s life, one way or another. In this case the man, when proven to be the sperm donor, will be required by courts nationwide to, at minimum, provide some level of child support, regardless of his desire to not have a part of their lives. He has, at this point been forced to support a child he never wanted. This is court mandated, legally accountable responsibility placed on the man for something that could have been changed by an abortion. He was forced; despite his continuous objections, to support the child. In the reverse situation, if the woman did not want the child, pro-choice activists proclaim that it is the woman’s body is forever changed and it has affected her life, therefore she has the right to abort the baby.

Situation 2)
A man and woman discover that she is pregnant. The man is excited to have the opportunity to have a baby, even though he did not plan for it. He is excited now to set his roots and start his family. She, however, does not want the responsibility of the baby because she has just now started her career as a world-traveling business lawyer. Having a child now will tie her down and she just isn’t ready for that kind of commitment. She wants to abort her baby, he doesn’t. She goes to the abortion clinic and without a moment of consideration of the man, the fetus is aborted. The man had no choice but to see his hopes for a children and settling down. Once again, her say, is greater than his.

I feel that these issues with abortion are examples of double standards that are taken for granted by the fairer sex. So if abortion is to remain legal then some sort of equality between the sexes when it comes to the choice of reproduction is in order.

 

[mskafka]

Think Progress » New Oklahoma law will publicy post details of women’s abortions online.

How simply pathetic this is. In this day and age in small communities, those eight questions could easily identify who had a Abortion. These scare tactics used to try and stop women from doing what they feel is right for both wrong and a abuse of laws.

So while Republicans and Democrats who are ultra-religious may enjoy seeing this, I assume Libertarians and those for small Government do not wish to see this. This is obviously Government involving themselves into a person's private matter and forcing them to answer questions they may not feel comfortable answering.

Where is the outrage from those on the right for Government intrusion in this situation? Or is it not Government intrusion because you agree with this?

Interesting story. I'm hoping that if someone really tries this stunt that their asses are nailed to the cross with the HIPPA laws. And I agree with you: if someone is going to claim to be anti-government, then they should be anti-government across the board.

You don't want the taxes? What about big brother interference in your personal life, and what you do with your body? I'm definitely not pro-abortion. But it's none of my business what people decide to do with their own bodies. If you're going to stand for something, don't go halfway--go balls to the wall.

 

[bodecea]

Anything that prevents the killing of unborn babies, I'm in favor of. Short of killing abortion docotrs. They'll be judged by someone far greater than myself as will all those that murder the innocent.

So, you think abortion is murder? Then you would support laws convicting anyone involved in an abortion of murder, right?

Yes I think the killing of an unborn child is equivalent to murder. I support laws that would make abortions illegal, except in rare cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger. And yes I'd expect if said laws were passed then those involved in illegal abortions should be tried in a court of law.

So, the Doctor, the woman, the person who drove the woman to the clinic, the nurses etc. would all be charged with murder or ascessory to murder? And murder one since it was planned, right?

 

[Ravi]

Are you of the opinion that we should not have any laws? Because every law on the books is the impositions of someone's morals on other people.

Immie

In our country laws are based on civil rights. If you are violating someone's civil rights it is probably illegal.

And everyone of those Civil Rights is someone's idea of morality. Regardless of the law, it is based upon someone's idea of moral living. You may or may not agree with the morality of those who made the law and got it passed, but they wrote it because they believed it was the moral thing to do.

Immie

I don't think so. Laws were based on common law for centuries and our constitution is based on civil rights. You can claim they came from morals, you can claim they agree with your morals, but each and every valid and just law simply prevents one person from enfringing on someone else's civil rights.

 

[mskafka]

Think Progress » New Oklahoma law will publicy post details of women’s abortions online.

How simply pathetic this is. In this day and age in small communities, those eight questions could easily identify who had a Abortion. These scare tactics used to try and stop women from doing what they feel is right for both wrong and a abuse of laws.

So while Republicans and Democrats who are ultra-religious may enjoy seeing this, I assume Libertarians and those for small Government do not wish to see this. This is obviously Government involving themselves into a person's private matter and forcing them to answer questions they may not feel comfortable answering.

Where is the outrage from those on the right for Government intrusion in this situation? Or is it not Government intrusion because you agree with this?

Why is it a scare tactic? If you see nothing wrong with killing an unborn child then why would public opinion matter?

What is so uncomfortable with these questions...

1. Date of abortion
2. County in which abortion performed
3. Age of mother
4. Marital status of mother
(married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never married)
5. Race of mother
6. Years of education of mother
(specify highest year completed)
7. State or foreign country of residence of mother
8. Total number of previous pregnancies of the mother
Live Births
Miscarriages
Induced Abortions

to a woman that has no problem with killing an unborn child?

Uhm...becaue it violates HIPPA laws. If we're going to do that, then why not publicize all of the HIV postive patients' records in the paper, because they've obviously been doing something degenerate. (scoff) And then we could publicize all psychiatrists' records-all those with schizophrenia, personality disorders, etc... Because they MIGHT do something to hurt us, eventually.

If people are allowed to do this, then I believe the sky's the limit for what is allowed from that point forward. We could publish all the sexually transmitted diseases that have been treated-because "they was a fornicatin', Billy Bob.".

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So, you think abortion is murder? Then you would support laws convicting anyone involved in an abortion of murder, right?

Yes I think the killing of an unborn child is equivalent to murder. I support laws that would make abortions illegal, except in rare cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger. And yes I'd expect if said laws were passed then those involved in illegal abortions should be tried in a court of law.

So, the Doctor, the woman, the person who drove the woman to the clinic, the nurses etc. would all be charged with murder or ascessory to murder? And murder one since it was planned, right?

Stop beating around the bush and make your point.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Think Progress » New Oklahoma law will publicy post details of women’s abortions online.

How simply pathetic this is. In this day and age in small communities, those eight questions could easily identify who had a Abortion. These scare tactics used to try and stop women from doing what they feel is right for both wrong and a abuse of laws.

So while Republicans and Democrats who are ultra-religious may enjoy seeing this, I assume Libertarians and those for small Government do not wish to see this. This is obviously Government involving themselves into a person's private matter and forcing them to answer questions they may not feel comfortable answering.

Where is the outrage from those on the right for Government intrusion in this situation? Or is it not Government intrusion because you agree with this?

Why is it a scare tactic? If you see nothing wrong with killing an unborn child then why would public opinion matter?

What is so uncomfortable with these questions...

1. Date of abortion
2. County in which abortion performed
3. Age of mother
4. Marital status of mother
(married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never married)
5. Race of mother
6. Years of education of mother
(specify highest year completed)
7. State or foreign country of residence of mother
8. Total number of previous pregnancies of the mother
Live Births
Miscarriages
Induced Abortions

to a woman that has no problem with killing an unborn child?

Uhm...becaue it violates HIPPA laws. If we're going to do that, then why not publicize all of the HIV postive patients' records in the paper, because they've obviously been doing something degenerate. (scoff) And then we could publicize all psychiatrists' records-all those with schizophrenia, personality disorders, etc... Because they MIGHT do something to hurt us, eventually.

If people are allowed to do this, then I believe the sky's the limit for what is allowed from that point forward. We could publish all the sexually transmitted diseases that have been treated-because "they was a fornicatin', Billy Bob.".

Thanks for showing us your idiocy. But we already knew you were an idiot.

 

[mskafka]

Why is it a scare tactic? If you see nothing wrong with killing an unborn child then why would public opinion matter?

What is so uncomfortable with these questions...

1. Date of abortion
2. County in which abortion performed
3. Age of mother
4. Marital status of mother
(married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never married)
5. Race of mother
6. Years of education of mother
(specify highest year completed)
7. State or foreign country of residence of mother
8. Total number of previous pregnancies of the mother
Live Births
Miscarriages
Induced Abortions

to a woman that has no problem with killing an unborn child?

Uhm...becaue it violates HIPPA laws. If we're going to do that, then why not publicize all of the HIV postive patients' records in the paper, because they've obviously been doing something degenerate. (scoff) And then we could publicize all psychiatrists' records-all those with schizophrenia, personality disorders, etc... Because they MIGHT do something to hurt us, eventually.

If people are allowed to do this, then I believe the sky's the limit for what is allowed from that point forward. We could publish all the sexually transmitted diseases that have been treated-because "they was a fornicatin', Billy Bob.".

Thanks for showing us your idiocy. But we already knew you were an idiot.

If I'm an idiot, then tell me how this DOESN'T violate HIPAA laws.

 

[Modbert]

Of course I wouldn't want any laws to be broken. But they can amend their state constitution that would make it pefectly legal. And seeing that we're talking about the lives of unborn children it should be a no-brainer. I'm amazed that there are people out there that don't value the life of an unborn child.

Those two sentences, what a fucking hypocrite.

Oh, well I don't want laws to be broken BUT they won't be broken if we change them! Way to hold up the Constitution of this country there bucko! Another example of Conservatives in favor of the Constitution only when it favors them.

 

[veritas]

What about the man's rights?

How do you suggest a man's rights be exercised in these cases. I'm interested.

I think the man should have the right to help decide the fate of the unborn child. Look at the two situations and see what you think.


Situation 1)
A man and a woman discover that she is pregnant. She wants the baby but he does not. She continues through with the pregnancy despite his continuous requests for her to abort the fetus. Due to whatever beliefs of her and her family, she also wants him to be part of the child’s life, one way or another. In this case the man, when proven to be the sperm donor, will be required by courts nationwide to, at minimum, provide some level of child support, regardless of his desire to not have a part of their lives. He has, at this point been forced to support a child he never wanted. This is court mandated, legally accountable responsibility placed on the man for something that could have been changed by an abortion. He was forced; despite his continuous objections, to support the child. In the reverse situation, if the woman did not want the child, pro-choice activists proclaim that it is the woman’s body is forever changed and it has affected her life, therefore she has the right to abort the baby.

Situation 2)
A man and woman discover that she is pregnant. The man is excited to have the opportunity to have a baby, even though he did not plan for it. He is excited now to set his roots and start his family. She, however, does not want the responsibility of the baby because she has just now started her career as a world-traveling business lawyer. Having a child now will tie her down and she just isn’t ready for that kind of commitment. She wants to abort her baby, he doesn’t. She goes to the abortion clinic and without a moment of consideration of the man, the fetus is aborted. The man had no choice but to see his hopes for a children and settling down. Once again, her say, is greater than his.

I feel that these issues with abortion are examples of double standards that are taken for granted by the fairer sex. So if abortion is to remain legal then some sort of equality between the sexes when it comes to the choice of reproduction is in order.

1) TFB, you planted it and that was fun, now pay for it. That's what conservatives say to women.

2) This scenario assumes it's about commitment, but what if she doesn't want to be committed or marry this guy? He should have no power over what she does with her body. I bet if we turned this around and mandated all men have vasectomies we'd have some screaming going on.......bigtime.

 

[veritas]

Of course I wouldn't want any laws to be broken. But they can amend their state constitution that would make it pefectly legal. And seeing that we're talking about the lives of unborn children it should be a no-brainer. I'm amazed that there are people out there that don't value the life of an unborn child.

Those two sentences, what a fucking hypocrite.

Oh, well I don't want laws to be broken BUT they won't be broken if we change them! Way to hold up the Constitution of the state there bucko! Another example of Conservatives in favor of a Constitution only when it favors them.

You can't amend a state constitution to override the Federal Constitution. Moron.

 

[Modbert]

and I love how they have made this into an arguement and whether abortion is right or not.
This is not the issue here, the issue is the women's rights will be violated.

You ladies need to note Conservative guys. Remember who's side I'm on here.

 

[Modbert]

You can't amend a state constitution to override the Federal Constitution. Moron.

I know this, I didn't say that. Lonestar did.

 

[veritas]

You can't amend a state constitution to override the Federal Constitution. Moron.

I know this, I didn't say that. Lonestar did.

I know. Sorry if it was not clear.

 

[Modbert]

To put it bluntly:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXviTQZQZxM]YouTube - George Carlin - Abortion[/ame]

10 minutes of relevancy to this thread and Conservatives today who hold these positions.

Oh by the way, any Conservative who is for the Death Penalty and against Abortion because it's murder is a total hypocrite.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Uhm...becaue it violates HIPPA laws. If we're going to do that, then why not publicize all of the HIV postive patients' records in the paper, because they've obviously been doing something degenerate. (scoff) And then we could publicize all psychiatrists' records-all those with schizophrenia, personality disorders, etc... Because they MIGHT do something to hurt us, eventually.

If people are allowed to do this, then I believe the sky's the limit for what is allowed from that point forward. We could publish all the sexually transmitted diseases that have been treated-because "they was a fornicatin', Billy Bob.".

Thanks for showing us your idiocy. But we already knew you were an idiot.

If I'm an idiot, then tell me how this DOESN'T violate HIPAA laws.

Did I say it didn't violate any laws? If you had been following the thread, which you obviously haven't , you would have seen where I said that if any laws were being broken then perhaps the laws need to be changed.