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

a reply to: dawnstar

Ok.

*shrugs*

I'm against abortion, myself, but that's just me.

I thought it was funny to see everyone up in arms about federal law, when pot, illegal aliens get to ignore it and people support those violations.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

Maybe the state can violate another federal law and legalize pot to pay for it.

That is certainly a good idea right there. That would help for sure. Of course that would mean even Bigger and Bigger Government once again for that too.

But at least all these unwanted children would have some weed to smoke while they grow up in broken homes. They'll have to kill that emotional pain somehow after all.

a reply to: mOjOm

Does every child that starts out unwanted, grow up in broken homes in emotional pain?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: EternalShadow

So aborting a fetus that was conceived by a rapist will now be illegal, aborting a fetus that was conceived from a broken condom will now be illegal.

Why should a woman have to go through the labor pains and doctor bills associated with birth because of her being raped or a condom breaking? That's not fair on her.

There are legitimate reasons for abortions being performed, this law will now make these legitimate reasons null and void and most likely lead to women trying to perform an abortion on themselves or have someone who is not a professional without the right tools do it for them.

No one should be forced to do something they don't want to do, they should not be punished for an accident or from being raped. It's stupid, plain and simple. Those medical bills that come with birth will be on the shoulders of the mother, not the condom company or rapist. Does that sound fair to you?

1. Take some self-defense courses or get a gun and a concealed carry.

2. If your not responsible enough to realize that a condom isn't the end all when it comes to protection, you shouldn't be having sex in the first place. As far as the broken condom excuse, there's a surefire way to not have kids, it's called abstinence.

3. The ONLY legitimate reason to abort a pregnancy is when the mother's life is in imminent danger. Even then, some mother's graciously give their lives for the sake of the baby.

4. OKLAHOMA is not an island, if they are determined enough, other states will abide. Maybe that drive will give the mother some time to think. If they instead choose to perform it on themselves, that's murder POINT BLANK. If they seek a lesser qualified individual to do it, that person should be charged as well.

5. "No one should be forced to do something they don't want to do... " Really??? You don't pay taxes?? Non-custodial parents don't pay child support?? No ever goes to court for traffic tickets?? Get real.

5. You equate the inconvenience of child birth with monetary liability. You really suck.

Oh and just because the condom breaks, does that mean the father has no say????

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: shooterbrody

The individual states should be able to decide these things for themselves. That's the entire point of "United States of America", as opposed to, say, "Federal Government of America". The point is that more localized laws make for less tyranny.

I am all for States rights. I just think the bill will be challenged in court and not survive. I also think those who passed the bill know that. So to me it will end up a waste of taxes.

That's very possible. Even so, such a case could point out court tyranny.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The individual states should be able to decide these things for themselves. That's the entire point of "United States of America", as opposed to, say, "Federal Government of America". The point is that more localized laws make for less tyranny.

If you're ok to let individual states decide what to do then why not just let Individuals themselves decide what to do for themselves??? That would be an even more direct form of Liberty would it not??? After all, an abortion doesn't effect anyone other than those involved so why have everyone else in the entire state make a decision that only effects the individual within that state.

An abotion does affect someone other than the woman; it affects the child.

a reply to: mOjOm

remember this??

An Oklahoma lawmaker pushing a bill that would more-or-less ban abortion in the state dismissed concerns that the legislation would drag the cash-strapped state into a costly legal battle by suggesting God would take care of the state's financial issues.

"Everybody talks about this $1.3 billion deficit,” state Rep. David Brumbaugh (R) said during Thursday evening's deliberations of the bill, before invoking a saying he said a friend told him.

"If we take care of the morality, God will take care of the economy,” he said.

talkingpointsmemo.com...

we're talking about the same law, aren't we??

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

because.....
there's no tyrannical politicians holding office on the state level??
I'm from NY, I know better!
no state is allowed to create laws that infringe on the constitutional rights of their citizens, and the supreme court has decided that laws banning abortion is an infringement of those rights.

Of course there is. However it's far easier to handle such issues at a local level than at a national one. People are more aware. People in other areas, with differing opinions, don't have the chance to dictate to the local area, and so forth.

What about the Constitutional rights of the unborn?

originally posted by: olaru12
Now this question will be asked of all candidates, GOP and dembs. "How do you feel about the Oklahoma abortion ban and making Doctors felons if they perform an abortion"

"Sounds like a state issue. Let it work through the courts. Next question?"

a reply to: DBCowboy

No not all of them. But quite a few of them do for sure. An unstable family setting, poverty and things like that are some of the most given reasons for why women opt for abortion. Along with abusive relationships and other negative things.

But some stable settings also produce unwanted pregnancies as well.

But I think it's pretty reasonable to say that most people who choose to have an abortion probably have some kind of valid reason behind making that choice whatever it is. I doubt most people just flip a coin or guess a number between 1 and 10 or whatever.

That's ridiculous!

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
why is it republicans are always yammering on about smaller government, then they pass laws like this ?

Republicans? Not really.

Conservatives want smaller federal government, and returning that power to the states. Then the states can see what works and what doesn't, and any damage is mitigated to their borders.

a reply to: mOjOm

Some states violate federal law by allowing pot.

Some states violate federal law by allowing sanctuary cities for illegals.

And now?

Maybe some states want to ban abortion that goes against federal law.

Now, are you against states violating federal law or are you for states violating federal law?

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
An abotion does affect someone other than the woman; it affects the child.

Except it's not a child yet. It's also not capable or recognized as being an independent being that can speak for itself. It's not legally able to give consent about anything. In fact all it's decisions even after it's born and actually is a child are made by the parent.

So it would seem that what the mother chooses is also what the unborn fetus chooses too. Both legally and logically speaking.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The individual states should be able to decide these things for themselves. That's the entire point of "United States of America", as opposed to, say, "Federal Government of America". The point is that more localized laws make for less tyranny.

If you're ok to let individual states decide what to do then why not just let Individuals themselves decide what to do for themselves??? That would be an even more direct form of Liberty would it not??? After all, an abortion doesn't effect anyone other than those involved so why have everyone else in the entire state make a decision that only effects the individual within that state.

If that's what the People in the State vote for, then that is how it would be. Otherwise, the 9th and 10th Amendments allow the States to make those calls.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: olaru12
Now this question will be asked of all candidates, GOP and dembs. "How do you feel about the Oklahoma abortion ban and making Doctors felons if they perform an abortion"

"Sounds like a state issue. Let it work through the courts. Next question?"

Yes, it's a state issue until some smart ass reporter decides to ask national candidates their opinion on the dumb ass Okie legislation.

Do you honestly think the dembs won't use this ammunition to discredit the national republicans. It's almost as if the Republicans want to lose. Oh, it will work thru the courts alright and be blown sky high in the national media.

This BS isn't doing Trump any favors either! He's having enough trouble keeping women in his political base. This could alienate the rest of them to his detriment and could cost him the election.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

and a pregnancy effects more than just the fetus!!

"when the mother's life is in imminent danger."
ya know women who miscarry, even when the fetus would be unable to survive outside the womb, the catholic hospitals will send them home multiple times claiming that there is nothing they can do, even giving the women false hope that the they'll be able to carry the fetus full term. sometimes these women will end up becoming septic before the fetus doesn't have a heartbeat and the catholic hospital will step in. some of these women will end up in ICU units for extended stays. unfortunately many times, by the time the "immininent danger" to the life of the mother occurs, the mother has gone through hours possibly days of needless suffering, and quite possibly irreparable damage has already occurred.
I guess we have to put up with the catholics constitutionally protected religious beliefs causing this kind of pain and suffering, but do we really want who states when it's the norm?

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
An abotion does affect someone other than the woman; it affects the child.

Except it's not a child yet. It's also not capable or recognized as being an independent being that can speak for itself. It's not legally able to give consent about anything. In fact all it's decisions even after it's born and actually is a child are made by the parent.

So it would seem that what the mother chooses is also what the unborn fetus chooses too. Both legally and logically speaking.

By your argument, anyone could kill a baby that can't talk yet *or* a person in a coma/vegetative state and not be charged with murder.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: olaru12
Now this question will be asked of all candidates, GOP and dembs. "How do you feel about the Oklahoma abortion ban and making Doctors felons if they perform an abortion"

"Sounds like a state issue. Let it work through the courts. Next question?"

Yes, it's a state issue until some smart ass reporter decides to ask national candidates their opinion on the dumb ass Okie legislation.

Do you honestly think the dembs won't use this ammunition to discredit the national republicans. It's almost as if the Republicans want to lose. Oh, it will work thru the courts alright and be blown sky high in the national media.

This BS isn't doing Trump any favors either!

"Why are you asking me a question about a single state? I'm not running for Governor. Next question?"

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

you can't give a few cells the same rights as the body that harbors them. they cannot be considered equal under the law since sometimes, they are at odds with each other.
like for instance, what if the mother has cancer? do we deny her the drugs that will slow the growth of the cancer, or do we deny her those drugs for the sake of the fetus within her and just hope and pray that she lasts long enough to deliver a healthy baby?