Oklahoma lawmakers have passed a bill that makes performing an abortion a felony.

a reply to: windword

I'm not sure just how much this will change what we've been discussing, if it's even passed but it might at least force the catholic hospitals to inform their patients of those alternative treatments that they don't want to provide and provide referrals to some who will..

The Do Not Harm Act....

or congress' answer to the hobby lobby fiasco..

kennedy.house.gov...

a reply to: MOMof3

By what authority do you (and you alone) have the right to decide what to do with another's body? You're argument falls on it's ear when put through even the slightest scrutiny. In the case you put forth, it would still be a criminal act. You weren't the only one who's genetic material went INTO creating the life, and citing "I have a euterus" is little more than a cop-out; so why is it that only your input is relevant? It's not YOUR body most directly effected by the procedure.

a reply to: dawnstar
AGAIN, that is NOT the majority of abortion cases. All you can do are cite extreme examples as if they're the norm. Also, if you read my full post, you'd see i'm not against abortions wherein the mother's life is at risk.

If the fetus would be lost anyways, and the mother's life is at risk...do what ya gotta do to save the mother obviously. That should go without saying. You're attempt to put words in my mouth fails, because that isn't at all what I said. Please. Go back, and read my full post.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Direct contravention to roe. This law is unlawful.

a reply to: jjsr420

That is your opinion. Abortion is still legal. This law will not stand and more money thrown into lawyer's accounts will be the only result. And maybe make you feel like they are doing something about it.

a reply to: MOMof3

originally posted by: jjsr420
a reply to: MOMof3

By what authority do you (and you alone) have the right to decide what to do with another's body? You're argument falls on it's ear when put through even the slightest scrutiny. In the case you put forth, it would still be a criminal act. You weren't the only one who's genetic material went INTO creating the life, and citing "I have a euterus" is little more than a cop-out; so why is it that only your input is relevant? It's not YOUR body most directly effected by the procedure.

What in that was opinion?

1. You weren't the only one who's genetic material went into creating life. Fact.
2. Using "I have a euterus", or "You don't have a euterus" is infact a cop-out. None of us get to choose the bodies we are born into, nor do we have control over what organs we have, or do not have. Thus is it irrelevant. This could be construed as opinion, but given the facts behind it, I think it's a bit more than just an opinion.
3. It's not YOUR body most directly effected by the procedure (an Abortion) again, fact.

All you're doing is dodging the question. Why is it that only your input on wether the life gets to continue, or not is relevant? I'm not asking for a "Because it's legal" response, i'm asking why you think this. Citing legality is also no indication of wether a Law is good, or bad. There are a great many Bad laws.

So stop dodging the question. Why is it that only your input on wether the life gets to continue, or not is relevant?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I'm done arguing about it, since neither of us are gonna budge on the topic and it's mildly off topic to begin with.
it's only relevant in that the law that the gov't vetoed in oklahoma would have similar restraints so, we'd probably have doctors being punished to ending pregnancies that have a 99% chance of killing the mother there also.

Doesn't seem likely, does it? I don't see it as off topic at all, but that's alright. We will simply have to agree to disagree. At least it's been relatively civil. Anyway, see you in some other thread.

a reply to: jjsr420

Why is it that only your input on wether the life gets to continue, or not is relevant?

My body, my choice.

a reply to: jjsr420

"So stop dodging the question. Why is it that only your input on wether the life gets to continue, or not is relevant?"

Not having total control really drives you crazy huh.

well, unless the oklahoma legislature goes into overtime, today is the last day to override the governors veto of this bill. unfortunately, they are doing what it seems is the most logical thing for any legislative body to do, spend the last five hours of their legislative session to drive though a not so acceptable budget proposal.

Some public schools are starting summer vacation several days early. Others are contemplating a four-day week to cut costs. And more than 200 teachers in Oklahoma City were handed pink slips in March.

But instead of addressing a burgeoning budget crisis that threatens public education and other critical state services, Oklahoma lawmakers have been busy debating proposals to criminalize abortion, police students’ access to public bathrooms and impeach President Obama.

www.msnbc.com...

it doesn't matter what state you are talking about, or even if it's the federal gov't, we seem to end up with last ditch efforts that produce insane budgets... the one item that just about everyone would agree, is one of the legislatures primary functions!

it seems that I was right about this law's lack of protections regarding the mother's life....

Some readers may be shocked by the feature of the Oklahoma bill in which a doctor who performs an abortion to save the life of the mother may still be subject to felony liability and corresponding prison time. Does anyone really hold the view that an abortion to save the life of the mother is wrong?

The answer to that question is yes, and I will try here to explain why that position makes sense, if one truly believes that a zygote is a fully entitled moral being with a right to be and to remain where it is. Many of us think of a zygote or embryo or fetus as, at least in a sense, invading the internal physiological space of the pregnant woman. Some of us may still oppose most abortions, on the theory that such invasion of the woman’s internal space is both arguably consensual (assuming that intercourse was consensual) and less significant than the alternate harm of killing the zygote, embryo, or fetus. But when the fetus threatens the life of the mother, then the internal invasion narrative of pregnancy leads us to say “remove the fetus” (even at the cost of killing it) and thereby avoid allowing the fetus to kill the mother. Those who view the zygote, embryo, or fetus as an internal “occupier” of the woman therefore regard a threat to the mother’s life as akin to a self-defense situation, in which the woman has the right to defend her life from what is essentially an attack on it by her own fetus.

But consider a different way of thinking about the zygote living inside the woman. Although the woman was there first, one could regard this detail as irrelevant (much as we regard a person’s being older than another person as irrelevant to the right to life). The woman and the fetus, on this alternative account, are both occupying the same space and are both equally entitled to be doing so. The woman’s blood supply nourishes both her and her fetus, and they are both naturally dependent on the oxygen and nutrients that the woman takes into her body.

The woman and fetus are, in this scenario, like two inhabitants of a lifeboat, both of whom need to be there to survive. If suddenly, the lifeboat became able to sustain only one of its passengers, it would not follow legally (or, arguably, morally either) that either passenger would be entitled to throw the other passenger overboard to save himself or herself. As soon as we conceive of the fetus as simply a co-occupant of the same physical space as the woman, rather than as a parasite of the sort that inherently invades what is primarily the woman’s space, it becomes far less clear that the woman may kill (or do the equivalent by expelling) the fetus in order to preserve her own life.

The above narrative of a fetus’s place inside a woman’s body is not one that I find convincing. It is, however, one that I can understand, and it leads to the logical consequence that even in a case in which continuing her pregnancy threatens the woman’s very life, it may still be morally impermissible to abort. For someone who takes this position (such as the Catholic Church), a law that criminalizes the performance of all abortions, including those that would save a mother’s life, is not only comprehensible but in perfect alignment with their morality. For them, this law has the benefit of accurately and authentically reflecting what they view as the wrongfulness of abortion, a wrongfulness that has nothing to do with the timing of the procedure, the reason for the procedure, or the presence of absence of admitting privileges and/or surgical equipment at the facility where the procedure is performed.

verdict.justia.com...

a reply to: MOMof3

Just more dodging the question I see. How......weak.

a reply to: windword

Again, it's not your body most directly affected by the procedure.

a reply to: jjsr420

even you admit that there are instances where abortion is the best option, am I right.
so if it's not the mothers decision to make, who's should it be?
the lawmakers, who for some strange reason seem to have wanted to make it a felony, even if the action was to save the life of the mother? courts and judges that aren't really qualified to decide on medical issues? doctors, who might understand the medical issues but might not be able to comprehend any women's desire to take the risk for the sake of their child? public opinion, steered by far right catch phrases, half truths, heck possibly totally non-truths geared to induce an emotional uproar.

just who should be the decision maker if not the mother, hopefully after discussion with the future father and consultation with her doctor?

and keep in mind here, we have a healthcare system that is already costing way too much money, a zika virus they say is going to cause many for deformities, and a gov't who more than likely would rather to not have to take on the additional expense of caring for those babies. those same lawmakers that you are looking to to strip that decision from the mother could very well turn around and give mom no say in the opposite manner than you are desiring. same thing could be said of the doctors, their decision on the matter could be swayed more by legalities or possibly just pure greed.
please tell me, who in this world has a greater chance to be thinking about just what is best for the baby, the family, along with themselves since it is often that the mother is the wheel that keeps the entire family turning round and round and her loss could cause much more destruction overall than an abortion would cause!

a reply to: dawnstar

Why should anyone get to decide if another life continues, or not? Yet again, in the vast majority of cases, it's NOT medically necessary. So in many cases, people are only thinking of themselves. Nobody should have a say in whether a life continues, or not. The only exception should be when there is a tangible threat to the mother's life, and that should be determined by a Doctor (obviously without political influence)

Not you, not me, not the mother, or father; a Doctor, if it's a medical necessity. Otherwise, it's a matter of convenience, and a method to not be accountable for decisions that one has already made (in the majority of cases; rape excluded), and in the case of rape, I still see nothing that the life creating by the act has done wrong. That's like me punishing you for something your parents did.

originally posted by: jjsr420
a reply to: windword

Again, it's not your body most directly affected by the procedure.

Yes, it most certainly is! My ovaries, my uterus, my eggs (fertilized or not)....don't stop being mine because of a chemical reaction.

My body, my choice.

a reply to: windword
So, those organs are removed in an Abortion? Interesting. I didn't know that. *End Sarcasm*

What IS effected in an Abortion is the Fetus, which by having it's own unique dna, is no longer 'yours'. A man could easilly say 'My sperm', and it would be just as true as the statement you just said, as his sperm went into creating the new life; but again, it's no longer his sperm.

So yet again, because apparently you fail to understand what you can, or can not own (Saying you own another Human Life is akin to Slavery), and what exactly constitutes 'YOUR BODY'. Regardless of where the 'chemical reaction' takes place, it is still not your body being most directly effected by the Abortion procedure. Nice try though, but you're wrong. You can either accept that, or not; not my problem really.

And then there is the atypical response "My body, my choice." which is inherently untrue, as explained above. That's the typical response when someone on your side of this issue doesn't have a valid argument to even present. It's expected, and very atypical. Also wrong.

a reply to: jjsr420

What IS effected in an Abortion is the Fetus, which by having it's own unique dna, is no longer 'yours'.

BS! My eggs don't stop being my eggs because of a chemical reaction. My uterus doesn't stop being mine because a fertilized egg implants in its lining.

You can either accept that, or not; not my problem really.

a reply to: jjsr420

Ha,ha,ha, you own us all don't you sweetie? I mean, I can get that personal since you is the "life giver" and all. How many hungry full term humans have you fed today, God?

first of all, I don't care if it's a minority of the population we are talking about, our constitution and legal system protects the minorities just as much as it protects the majority. thus, the idea that we are all created equal.... the women does not lose her constitutional rights just because she's pregnant!

The only exception should be when there is a tangible threat to the mother's life, and that should be determined by a Doctor (obviously without political influence)

Not you, not me, not the mother, or father; a Doctor, if it's a medical necessity.

a reply to: jjsr420

so, are you saying that it should be the doctor only who decides, neither the mother or the father should have a say when pregnancies become complicated?? does this extend to those doctors who have to work within the growing chains of catholic hospitals in the country?


and then many times if the doctor does see that there is a danger, it seems that the danger is debunked...
here is just a few cases....

en.wikipedia.org...

www.nbcnews.com...

rewire.news... iety/

news.bbc.co.uk...




and sometimes, the doctors will make the wrong decision and run to the courts to have their wishes forced...

www.nytimes.com...

and then, there is always the risk that the doctors could start legally forcing abortions on women, which I know for a fact has happened in the past....


I know, I know, it just a very small number of women who have such complicated pregnancies, nothing to be concerned with, unless of course, you happen to be one of those women! we have women who have been jailed for eating poppy seeds while pregnant, for falling down the stairs and miscarrying, or getting into auto accidents. we have had women dying in operating rooms during c sections that were legally force on them. there is no other medical condition where a sane patient can be stripped of their right to determine their own medical treatment or be put under that kind of scrutiny as some of these women have been! it is very much her body, and she danged well sshould have a say with what happens to it!