Draconian Oklahoma Abortion Bill Goes Too Far

No, but I'm going to ask you for your definition and the cut you off if you reply.

 

Not sure you could cut me off considering it's font. I have a fairly fine enough definition.

Women - gender nature predisposition towards gestation. How hard was that? Nice. Clean. Encompasses those who can't have children but excludes dudes who wear costumes.

 

Then what do you mean by it going TOO far?

 

You cannot wait till you have one of these...

 

Not sure what that is?

 

Sure, Tommy, sure...

 

Yeah. No. If they're going to bite it's going to be a more defensible bill than this one. No way they're going to back a bill with no exception for rape. They are way smarter than you give them credit for. Although they are appointed for life, the justices are concerned with how they are perceived by the country. If they looking for a vehicle to overturn Roe, it'll be a much more targeted bill with common-sense exceptions.

 

Honestly have no ****ing clue what that is? Burning witches?

 

Seems you lack some history.

 

Both responses are insipid.

 

this is what happens when you vote Republican.... religious nuts take over

republicans in the SC will decide if this is too nutty or not for them

 

no women forced to have her rapists baby will ever support this

 

What does religion have to do with this?

 

Religious nuts in our country are the ones pushing this nonsense

 

I found some interesting & surprising things at the Wikipedia site on abortion in the U.S.Though Chrome would, unfortunately, not support pasting the color- coded map, it shows that 7 states actually have no limit to abortion at all; interestingly, these include Blue, Red, and Purple states: OR, VT, NH, NJ, CO, NM, & AK. Virginia is listed as 25+ weeks.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state

[Snip]
However, individual states can regulate and limit the use of abortion or create "trigger laws", which would make abortion illegal within the first and second trimesters if Roe were overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States.[3][4][5] Eight states—Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wisconsin—still have unenforced pre-Roe abortion bans in their laws, which could be enforced if Roe were overturned.[4] In accordance with the US Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), states cannot place legal restrictions posing an undue burden for "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus."[6]

[End]


While there was a wider range than I expected, there was also more similarity than I would've guessed. 40 States put the cutoff at between 20 weeks (17 states, but this includes Oklahoma), and either 24 weeks (6 states) or "at viability," which should be about 24 weeks, but can vary by a week or so, in either direction, based both on the hospital, as well as, I would imagine, the abortion doctor's discretion. 17 states-- once again, a mix of Red, Purple, & Blue ones-- use this viability threshold (from HI, CA, WA, & DC, to TN, MO, MT, & UT).

The only two outliers, on the low end of the spectrum, are Texas, at 6 weeks, and Mississippi, at 13 weeks.

https://www.verywellfamily.com/premature-birth-and-viability-2371529#toc-age-of-viability

[Snip]
22 to 23 Weeks
In the hands of experienced specialists in state-of-the-art NICUs, babies born slightly earlier than 24 weeks may have a chance at survival. But unfortunately, that chance is slim, and outcomes for those who do survive are not optimal.

For babies born at 23 weeks or earlier who do survive, the odds of significant complications and/or lasting disabilities are much higher than for those that stay in the womb a few weeks longer.(3)

A 2015 study showed that babies born at 22 weeks may also have a small chance at survival, but death or serious health issues have an even higher probability of occurring.(4)

Also, note that according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, babies born before 23 weeks have a survival rate of just 5% to 6%. Of those that do survive, 98% to 100% have substantial complications and/or disability.(3)

Survival Statistics
The odds of survival increase as the pregnancy progresses, and even an extra week in the womb can make a big difference. In general, premature babies born closer to 37 weeks will be better off than those born before 28 weeks.(5)

For instance, one study found that the overall rates for survival and for survival without impairment ranged from 5.1% and 3.4% respectively among babies born at 22 weeks gestation. For 26 weeks of gestation, the percentages were significantly higher with a survival rate of 81.4% and survival without impairment rate of 75.6%.6
[End]

 

To pick up on the link, posted by @LangleyMan , on Canada--

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada

-- though Canada is the only country with no legal restrictions on abortion, its abortion rate is actually low, compared to most nations, in contrast to the expectation of most Pro- Life advocates. Most healthcare facilities, however, will not, "offer abortion care beyond 23 weeks and 6 days without a medical reason as outlined by provincial regulatory authorities for physicians." So it is similar to a plurality of our states (23) which place the cutoff at either 24 weeks or at Viability.

If American abortions are similar to Canada's, in timing, it would be a comforting thing, for some, to know that 90% of Canadian abortions take place within the first trimester (the article erroneously lists this as 12 weeks, though there are 13 weeks, in 3 months-- unless they really mean "12 weeks," and their mistake was to call that the 1st trimester).

Also, half of Canada's abortions come from women aged 18 to 29: so young women, who are perhaps a bit naive about birth control (which is why thorough sex education, would effectively reduce unwanted pregnancies, and so abortions; yet many who support reducing access to abortion services, are against this).

This ties into a point one poster here made, that those behind limiting abortion, generally speaking, come to their advocacy through religion, and belief in the presence of a soul, from the moment of conception. So, for them, knowing how far from fully-formed are most fetuses, or embryos (not even considered a fetus until the 8th week), in Canada, at least, which are aborted, would be not at all consoling. This is where I would like to bring in the debater who challenged the assessment of a "religious" connection, with the Pro- Life movement.

While I acknowledge that one could revere human life, without being religious, such a person would, typically, recognize a huge difference between an embryo or very early stage fetus, and one that was near the point of viability. Also, such a person, who was not driven by some religious dogma, should logically favor a thorough covering of birth control, in school sex education. So would you address these two facets of abortion?

Wrapping up, here is a bit that I haven't signed up, from the article on Canadian abortion.

[Snip]
Formally banned in 1869, abortion would remain illegal in Canada law for the next 100 years.[6] In 1969, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968–69 legalized some abortions, as long as a committee of doctors certified that continuing the pregnancy would likely endanger the woman's life or health.[6] In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R. v. Morgentaler that the existing law was unconstitutional, and struck down the 1969 Act.[7] The ruling found that criminalization of abortion and legal restrictions violated a woman's right to “life, liberty and security of the person” guaranteed under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms established in 1982.[8]

In Canada, all surgical abortions are performed by a physician, with nurse practitioners, pharmacists and midwives able to provide medications for non-invasive medical abortions within nine weeks (63 days) of gestation.[9][10] Canada has had a relatively stable abortion rate since decriminalization,[11] with a modest decline since the mid 1990s (12% decline 1997 - 2017).[12] Canada has a low abortion rate overall compared to other countries,[3] with approximately 85,000 abortions reported in 2018...

 

Such a person would have no logical argument for how there is a "huge difference."

Are religious people against this?

 

Can you support that claim?

 

Then what do you mean by it going TOO far?

 

I don't but government does. There are literally thousands of laws that should be repealed.

 

I live in this country, if you did, it would be just as obvious

 

Okay, so you cannot support the claim.

 

Your statement is inexplicable, unless you have no idea whatsoever, what gestation entails. There are organs, and entire systems of the body, which are undeveloped at say 10 or 12 weeks, which are much more in place, by 20 or 24 weeks. But I think you know this. I am guessing that your argument rests on simply the fetus, embryo, or zygote, having human genes-- am I right? By that criterion, it would also be murder to have your appendix removed, because every cell in that organ also has human genes. What makes a child, and an independent human being, is not just the genes, but what they are programmed to do, immediately after combining with gametes from the opposite sex: it is this process, which creates a human being. Why an only partially completed process does not give you a human being, is the same reason I will also assert that any reasonable person does not consider a mere framework, to be the same thing as a "house." The fact that all the blueprints are drawn up, explaining the plan that will ultimately become a house, is irrelevant to the fact that, at the point when it is still being framed, the construction is not yet even close to being complete, or functional; and it would be generally agreed, that framing alone, is not the same thing as a "house." Do you disagree with this, as well?

The other argument, besides genes, that one hears, is it that of a soul, from the time of conception. As I said in my prior post, that is a religious perspective, which it seemed that you were debating against, as being the main impetus behind the Pro- Life movement.

It is my definite impression, that there is a strong connection between a religious viewpoint, and objecting to sex education. I would wager that this is the main reason why parents get their children excused from sex ed. I don't know how difficult it would be for me to find actual documentation of this, but I think that putting me through all that effort, is unwarranted, as this idea is, I think, general knowledge, even if it is, apparently, not so, to you.

 

Sure they are. But they are not the only ones. Do you really think that religion is the only reason to want to ban abortion?

 

Your logic is missing something. If left alone and nothing interferes, a ZEF, from the time of conception onwards, will lead to a born human baby. Each point in time that you are pointing out is just a stage in a normal human beings development. Of which we go through many through out our life times. Even after we are born. As such your appendix removal analogy is missing a crucial component. That component being the fact that it will never be anything BUT an appendix.

Mind you, I am pro-choice. Up to the point of viability. But I am also anti-abortion. You see, I see both sides of this issue. I have no problem admitting that abortions kill human beings. I also have no problem allowing it to happen to at least up to the point of viability. Even though I know it kills human beings. Why do I hold this view? Because I recognize that in this particular case, there are two sets of Rights that are at odds with each other. The Right to Life for example of both the child and the mother. In such a situation one side MUST over ride the other. Just like if a person is trying to kill me, I have a Right to save my life and strip that persons right to life away from them.

There has to be some sort of balance in this for the sake of society. Figuring out the balance between a woman's Right to Bodily Autonomy vs a ZEF's Right to Life is no easy thing. And it will forever be a contentious issue. Some will place more emphasis on the ZEF's Right to life. Likewise some will place more emphasis on the woman's Right to Bodily Autonomy. The only balance that I can see happening is to allow abortion up to the point of viability, and then ban it. But as we can all see, that has been a failure at resolving the issue as RvW did just that. So, it will always be a contentious issue.

What needs to be done however, and what CAN be done, is to recognize that neither side is "evil" on this issue. Both are wanting to preserve Rights.