Draconian Oklahoma Abortion Bill Goes Too Far

You are the one that is moving the goal posts. My original response to you was with in the parameters that you had set. After you moved the goal posts and set new criteria I used that criteria to show you how, again, your logic was flawed. All of my posts to you have been done using criteria you yourself has set.

And seriously? No rebuttal? I'd suggest you look up the definition of the word because you obviously do not know what it means. In all situations I have rebutted you in this thread. Your logic is piss poor. From beginning to end. I have shown why. That you are so invested in being "right" that you can't admit when you're wrong does not change this fact.

 

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.


If it won't then why ban it?

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


And, chris, I am not going around and around with you over issues we've discussed before and I won't give you definitions of every word I use (like "the")


No, it is logic. The crimes you mention are crimes against PERSONS, they cause disruption in society, cause chaos if unchecked.......abortion does not involve a crime against a person...and does NOT cause chaos in society.

Anti-Choicers cause disruption in society by trying to take away a basic human right, bodily autonomy.

If they believe that women should have the same rights as everyone else this would not be an issue.

Prohibition didn't stop drinking and repealing it didn't cause chaos.

Thank you for the opportunity to repost my correct in every way post which you have not shown to be wrong in any way

Do point out anything you consider incorrect ....or complain endlessly showing that you have NOTHING

 

I see there is no point in talking to you. Very well, continue with the fallacies. It only affects you.

 

Obviously I mean "women". Women's rights

 

We can't go too far is relaxing restrictions given the Canadian example.

 

don't need too, it's obvious

 

yes, there are some that want to punish women for having sex too

 

Then you would be wrong. Ex: Post 100 doesn't once mention religion.

 

you're free to give your own examples, I just gave mine

btw, clipping my post and changing the meaning of what I said is against the rules

my original post meant - yes you are right, and I gave an example

your snippet of my post just says, yes, which implies the opposite of what I said

your post 100, says you support Abortion, just not after certain point, so that would not be what I am talking about

btw, you should always link to a post, if a post before post 100 got deleted, your post would be #99

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ll-goes-too-far.598652/page-4#post-1073371407

 

YOU have NOT shown any of my post to be false...

Do point out anything you consider incorrect ....or complain endlessly showing that you have NOTHING

I see you choose the latter

 

Another Hit the Nail On The Head award.....

 

Don’t sweat it
it has the “get out of jail free” clause

Unless they define “medical emergency” that clause will effectively inactivate that law

 

Oooh! I doubt that

 

What defines a “medical emergency”?

 

I dunno.

 

We had one of the toughest laws around on abortion (part of the criminal code no less and dating back to the 1800s) and it was USELESS. Because of the “health and welfare” clause. So unless they care to define what constitutes a “medical emergency” this law is toilet paper. Eg. A woman threatening suicide - medical emergency? Running. Temp - Sepsis =? Emergency (see the case of Savita Halappanavar) etc etc etc.

Add on top of that the problem the police had here when it came to prosecutions - HIPPA. Privacy laws may prevent police investigation to “prove” the case was not a “true emergency”

 

You are obviously discounting the perspective of some people-- which do not include me-- who clearly see a ZEF as something equivalent to a human life. Maybe they even see it as something superior to the rest of us, as its "spirit," is still pure, and unsullied by personal, sinful transgressions. Some of them, also, no doubt, want to punish women for "illicit" sexual contact, out of wedlock. However, as their ban would also affect the approved sexual union, between a married couple, this proves that the advocates of a ban, hold the welfare of the embryo/fetus, as their primary concern. You have in no way proven that this is not the case.

Just because a law won't stop something, does not mean, to all people (or even to most), that any laws, attempting to serve as a deterrent, are worthless. Along the same lines as already cited by @Kal'Stang , we have anti- pedophilia laws, despite their failure to "stop," all pedophilia; I think it is fair to assume, however, that there would be more cases of pedophilia, were there no legal disincentives.

Laws against prostitution-- though a little less clear- cut, than those against pedophiliac behavior-- are another case, in which no one believes they bring the behavior to a halt; nevertheless, people see laws, as statements of societal values. 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. That legalization would have more practical effect, on the exploitation of women (not to mention, on the spread of venereal disease), does not mean that, alongside of "public decency," women's welfare, is not also one of the main motivations, behind the law.

 

However the differenterence is that abortion laws have shown to clearly threaten the lives and welfare of both women and born infants

 

That is not inconsistent, with advocates having concern for the "innocent" unborn. You understand, I trust, that I am not supporting their position. I am only focusing, in the post you quoted, on Fox's insupportable claim, that the only reason behind anti-abortion laws, is their supporters' desire to "punish women." Clearly, it is an untenable contention, that concern for the welfare of the fetus, is not the topmost of the Pro- Life faction's, overall motivations.

 

I hope you're right.

Women shouldn't have to put up with this crap when they choose to have an abortion.

 

More importantly they should not have to risk life and limb to get the treatment they need. This is what happened in Ireland with Savita Halappanar she had a partial miscarriage, developed sepsis and even though they could not get a foetal heartbeat they did not take her to theatre for a termination of pregnancy because the medical professionals at the time were threatened with deregistration if they performed an abortion


Her case led to an overturning of Ireland’s abortion laws

 

Talk with some of the antiabortionists here and that is the message you take away - that and the fact all women are slavering sluts who just want sex so they can abort

NONE a of us on the pro+choice side are “pro-abortion” we would far rather see women have free or at least easily affordable access to reliable long acting reversible contraception (LARCS)

You want to reduce abortion - reduce unwanted pregnancy. Sadly the Republican stance is also to reduce funding for contraception

 

quote: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person shall not purposely perform or attempt to perform an abortion except to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency." i see nothing wrong with that. do you?

quote: "A person convicted of performing or attempting to perform an abortion shall be guilty of a felony punishable by a fine not to exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), or by confinement in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term not to exceed ten (10) years, or by such fine and imprisonment." so, you have no problem with --'taking the life of a child?"--but why not take both their lives-- women & child. then it's even. with this law the abortionist, is killing a child.--arrested-- then will be tried in court--, if convicted, then---legally-- fined, or sent to prison for breaking the law. sounds right to me.

quote: Rape? No abortion. Incest? No abortion. Ruin the health of a pregnant woman? No abortion. Only to save her life. you seem to forget, that (f) the women goes to the hospital for a rape kit, or to see if the dna matches her family male line. she can be "i'll" call it cleaned out, so there will be no baby--- call it no--conception. so a abortion should not be needed.

quote: This is going too far and should not be signed into law. oh! so a law that makes it legal to murder a child, in your view is just fine. but one that tries to protect both women & child, goes too far? (interesting view,) i don't hold with it.---- to me makes no senseto me--- but it's your view, if i have that correct.

 

You said that the Oklahoma bill goes too far. How so?

 

Are you not familiar with the 'quote' feature on here?