Draconian Oklahoma Abortion Bill Goes Too Far

Though they may be very vocal here, online, it's good to remember that those who are most prominent in cyber space, are often not the ones out in the real world, doing things. I have my doubts as to how many anti-abortion protests, most of this forum's conservative critics, have been to. While I allowed that there might certainly be a fair degree of misogyny, among those fighting to end legal abortion, that does not justify Fox's incendiary charge, that it is ONLY an animus against women, and not at all a concern for the fetus (at least until birth), behind the entire anti-abortion movement; making arguments like that, is not going to lead to anything but a fight.

 

Where did I post """"""hat the only reason behind anti-abortion laws, is their supporters' desire to "punish women.""""

Until it's BORN and then "take care of yourself ya little tax drain...""" Or until it becomes a pregnant woman...

 

Why do you think it's OK to make women's lives hell and destroy their basic right to bodily autonomy?

Force them to risk their health and lives, suffer permanent physical damage


Anyone who thinks thats OK hates women, has "animus" towards women, is a misogynist....


The fetus suffers NOTHING in an abortion.

 

And there it is. The common misbelief that late term abortions are the norm. This along with a carefully cultivated concept that conceptus = baby

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
WHY does anyone think banning abortion will stop abortions?
It won't so I must conclude that misogynists just want women to suffer and/or legislators are extremely stupid.


If it won't then why ban it?

Yes, some might claim that but that doesn't mean they really mean it. And caring more for the unborn than the born is just stupid...and usually a mask for "let's control women by controlling their womb"

You"Again, as with abortion, though some may be most interested in prosecuting sexually- active women, the main rationale for the laws, is a concern for the welfare of the women engaged in the practice.""" (bolding mine)

IF anyone is "concerned for the welfare of women" they would certainly want abortion to be LEGAL and SAFE....making it illegal makes it unsafe showing them to be either stupid or unconcerned .

IF they were concerned for women they wouldn't be trying to destroy women's right to their own bodies making them virtual slaves.


IF women lose their right to bodily autonomy what's to stop them from some day being forced to abort ???

 

I think you misinterpreted my meaning. I wrote:

...While I allowed that there might certainly be a fair degree of misogyny, among those fighting to end legal abortion, that does not justify Fox's incendiary charge, that it is ONLY an animus against women, and not at all a concern for the fetus (at least until birth), behind the entire anti-abortion movement; making arguments like that, is not going to lead to anything but a fight.


My parenthetical comment, which you highlighted, at least until birth, related to the foregoing words, relating to those against all abortion, having "a concern for the fetus." My parenthetical addition, was to show that I am familiar with the argument that Republican support for the fetus, is not as obviously carried over into programs for children. This has absolutely nothing to do with late term abortions. So I really don't understand your reply.

 

It takes too many horror stories with martyred women before we stop oppressing women. How about we stop now—save the wait?

 

woman was reported by the hospital and the cops arrested her for murder - thank goodness for the DA

"Texas district attorney says he will drop murder charge against woman in connection with 'self-induced abortion'"

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/10/us/texas-district-attorney-drops-murder-charge/index.html

 

This is wrong. I'm against charging women for their abortions.

 

From you, dear:


FoxHastings said: ↑
UNCHERRY PICKED post:FoxHastings said: ↑
I see NO ONE has been able to answer the question:

WHY does anyone think banning abortion will stop abortions?

It won't so I must conclude that misogynists just want women to suffer and/or legislators are extremely stupid.

[End]

Beginning on page 5, after first including it in post #107, You copy that into nearly every one of your subsequent replies-- twice! See replies #114, #116, #121, #125, and, on page 6, #127.

That is 11 times, you use that line. So if you are now going to contend that you didn't say it, you are making it clear that it would be a waste of time, to engage you further, in the expectation of a sincere dialog.

 

Seems to go too far but hey, that's up to them. Plenty of other jurisdictions where you can get one.

I would very much so like to see the rapist in family court try to claim custody.

 

Rape is often difficult to prove, but the woman knows. Why should she be forced to give birth to her rapist's baby?

 

I'm not anti-abortion, I think it should be legal and unregulated by law. Clearly Oklahoma disagrees. You'd have to ask them how they deal with such things.

 

This is funny. You continue to quote your line, about anyone who wants to ban abortions, necessarily being a misogynist, (whose reason for wanting the ban-- since they must know that it wouldn't stop all abortions-- is that they "want women to suffer")-- despite your prior post, questioning my description of this, as being your opinion on the matter:

Apparently, you feel your inclusion of the "and/or..." tacked to the end of your position, gives you deniability-- at least technically?

It doesn't mean that they don't mean it, either.

At least, here, you modify your extreme bias from that all Pro- Life advocates, must be misogynists, to that they only, "usually," are. It is still an unproven assertion, but it is progress, nonetheless, towards the goal of being able to discuss the topic with you, rationally.

This is, patently, not a statement that you could expect anyone to accept, on your own authority. In fact, at least after a certain point, I am sure that your statement becomes false. So to try to contend this, only hurts your own case.

You completely misread my analogy, which was to those who are against legalizing prostitution. So you might think of the analogy as to those who are against there being no limit, on abortions (this was not as clean a fit-- which I'd indicated-- as my first analogy, to those favoring laws against pedophilia, despite knowing that the laws would not completely eliminate the problem).

In my quote, above, I was explaining that "though," there may be some antipathy towards women, mixed in among the motives of some in the Pro- Life movement, that does not mean that their apparent concern-- for the unborn, in the case of being anti-abortion-- is not their primary motivator. In a similar way, those against prostitution (though some will no doubt hold a very low opinion of sex workers), cannot be said, on the whole, to be against legalization, for any reason as much, as because of the negative consequences they feel it has, upon those women who fall into the practice (even if, in truth, legalization would much better serve the interests, of prostitution's victims). IOW, the advocates do it for the perceived victims, in either case, not predominantly out of spite, against those upon whom the laws are focused.

For abortion, however, we are talking about a concern for the fetus, not being absent, just because some may also be misogynist (against the mothers). The two situations are potential analogs-- not identical.




And your next post is an example of what I meant, when I'd said:

DEFinning said: ↑
...While I allowed that there might certainly be a fair degree of misogyny, among those fighting to end legal abortion, that does not justify Fox's incendiary charge, that it is ONLY an animus against women, and not at all a concern for the fetus (at least until birth), behind the entire anti-abortion movement; making arguments like that, is not going to lead to anything but a fight.

This is an unwarranted personalization of the argument, directed at me. And, on the most basic level, it is unfair, because that is NOT my position, that you are stating-- which you should already know.

I DO feel that it is proper to set a limit, during the gestational period, beyond which, abortions would only be undertaken for dealing with health risks to the mother, which did not arise until late in the pregnancy. This is not the same thing as forcing women to risk their lives & heath, and "suffer permanent physical damage." Logically, if they don't want to assume that "risk," then the sooner they abort, the less risk they run. But I definitely believe in giving women sufficient time to both recognize that they are pregnant, as well as to carefully consider their options, before going through with an abortion.

The only cause you would seem to have, for your statement that tries to portray me as the heavy, in this, is that I do not endorse abortion on demand, up until actual birth. If this is your position, that is fine-- you can make your case, w/out unjustly characterizing any other position as indicating that one is advocating for the torture of women.

Two other points, worth noting, are that birth is process, through which every human being who has ever existed, has come to be; so your depicting this natural process, as if it were akin to being condemned to a Nazi- run, slave labor camp, is quite a bit, over the top. Not that I deny that it is physically taxing, and that some even die in the process (though this is extremely rare, in a first world country, today). But if it were too much to expect-- as you describe it to sound-- it is a mystery as to why evolution could not have found a better method, and you should rightly take up your complaints with Mother Nature, Herself. Personally, though, I believe your thinking of pregnancy as comparable to "hell," is a minority view, for sure.

Once more, your taking such an extremely antagonistic, and demonizing view of your interlocutors, is no way to carry on a civilized debate.

 

Are you claiming that the low abortion rate is BECAUSE of there being no anti-abortion law?

 

Well, at all stages of development, it is a human being. At all stages of the development of a house, it cannot be said it's is a house. Pretty simple really.

No I certainly wouldn't call it "identical." However, in terms of it's moral value as a human being, it IS identical.

So should it be legal to kill comatose patients?

 

The same reason why rape is illegal, even though rape being illegal won't stop rape. Simple!

 

Simple, yes. An answer-- not in the least. The question is WHY one can be thought of, just the same as if it were completed, but the other can't-- which you did not address at all. So I repeat the question: Why is it that my house analogy does not stand up, for assessing a very incompletely formed being?

Well, my argument was that this intolerant animus, against all abortion, is driven, principally, by dogmatic, or religious, beliefs. Certainly, there is such a thing as societal morals, or mores, which cannot be considered "religious." Unfortunately for your argument, your contention flies in the face of the truth of the matter, when it comes to societal-- that is, profane-- morals: clearly the "moral value," of the ZEFs, which we permit to be aborted, is NOT identical, or equal, to the "moral value," of a human being. Otherwise, the mother's right would not be limited to only part of her pregnancy. In fact, if an embryo were considered the "moral" equal, to a human being, and we do allow mothers to abort these, they would, logically, be allowed to kill their children, after birth, as well, presumably for as long as they were dependents. That, however, is not the case. Therefore, you can only be making your assertion about a "moral" equivalence, from a RELIGIOUS perspective, thereby affirming my point, while disproving your own.

 

Let it what?

 

They can jump off a cliff and go to the same place all the many fetuses they aborted went to, if they want.

Having a baby really isn't that bad - if you're married! And that's what half of this is really about right there.

She only loses her "autonomy" for 9 months.
Well, more than that if she gets an unwanted pregnancy more than one time. Fortunately modern contraceptives can make that risk quite low. (Though it does take a little responsibility to properly use them)

 

I don't claim that the fetus is "completed." Far from it. But left to nature and the normal processes, it WILL be completed.

Well why is murder illegal do you think?

Correct, which is not logical or scientific.

No, it's from a LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC perspective.

 

So would the house.

Also, you can't even say "will," with any certainty-- life doesn't work that way. How can you know the woman won't have a miscarriage? You ever hear of a stillbirth? You are only talking about a probability, but you are treating it as a certainty.

No, that is only your opinion, and your assessment. Any scientist will tell you-- and even you admitted-- that the fetus is not identical to a human being. Do you remember your reply? You said that it had the identical "MORAL value." FYI, that is not a "SCIENTIFIC perspective."

So I, or anyone, is supposed to believe that no one but you, and your fellow Pro- Lifers, understand logic? The Supreme Court, did not apply a "LOGICAL perspective?" What type of perspective was it, then?

You can call your opinion, the logical one, but that is no more of an argument, than would be my simply saying, "but I'm right."

Your conceit, leads you to ask the wrong question, above. The correct thing, to ask yourself, would have been, "why is abortion legal, and NOTconsidered murder?"

 

Let it incubate in the artificial womb.

 

I'm my scenario, a ZEF would only be transplanted into the artificial womb in an emergency to save it. If it risked a miscarriage for example.

 

You can't say why you think murder is illegal?