Draconian Oklahoma Abortion Bill Goes Too Far

Lots of these folks get all weepy over the right not to get a covid vaccination while they oppose abortion rights because their Imaginary Friend opposes abortion, according to what their pastor says.

 

Only a superficial puny mind keeps pestering someone for of a mistake they already corrected. What a loser!

 

You either somehow missed the point of my long explanation-- which I've already given twice, & don't plan to reprise, yet again-- or you are taking my words out of context, on purpose, to make an inapplicable argument; i.e., I never contended anything about anyone being right, or less wrong, or intentions making something forgivable, or being an "extenuating circumstance," et cetera, etc., etc. The point in question was nothing other than the motive, in its own right (because of Fox Hastings' strong statements about the personal motivating emotion, behind all-- and/or most-- Pro- Lifers).

What kind of point are you trying to make? Not all decisions are open- ended, to be changed at any time, with no consequences. Damn, you could get charged for a motel room that you never used, just for not cancelling your reservation, in time. But you are suggesting that a woman who thought she wanted to give birth, at 5 1/2 months pregnant, should have the right to capriciously change her mind, at the 7- month mark? At that point, the fetus has established "residency," and the mother will have to wait out the eviction process, until she gives birth (either naturally, or by Cesarian Section). The decision whether or not to have a child, should be made with significant & sober thought, so impulsive changes of mind are not likely to occur.

 

Argumentum ad hominem. I was only discussing the inconsistency of your position.

 

Because they do not have a brain sufficiently developed to have a conscious existence at the time most abortions occur. No mind (even a rudimentary one), no person.

 

If these babies were within a marriage, an abortion probably wouldn't be required and the woman probably would not have gotten one.

You seem to just play dumb by wanting to believe marriage has nothing at all to do with it.

 

Yeah, that brain is only developed enough for the fetus to suck its thumb.

Even if the fetus could sing and dance, and do arithmetic, that still wouldn't be enough for pro-choicers.

 

Forget walls, but they should need a state ID to work anywhere in the state for private business. A cellphone app can check the ID against a government database.

 

Huh? This doesn't make sense.

 

You're a Progressive, so maybe it really wouldn't make sense to you.

It makes 100% sense to any conservative.

(Ask some, if you don't believe me. Say "What does having babies out of wedlock have to do with the issue of abortion? Someone told me to ask you, since you're a conservative. I really don't know.")

 

My cat licked her paws, but that didn't make her a person.

Yeah, but it doesn't.

 

Good idea. Getting back on topic. Abortion laws cannot be enforced and have no benefit to society.

 

If they cannot be enforced, then pro-choicers have nothing to worry about from more laws, do they?

Oh yeah? What about all those families looking to adopt white babies, but the waiting lists are too long?

Apparently you do not count the unborn as part of "society" who can benefit from these laws.

 

Oh, please. A higher percentage of abortions are performed on married women these days than in the past.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/185325/number-of-legal-abortions-by-marital-status-in-the-us-since-1973/

Abortion is a woman's issue, married or not. It's her right to control her own body. Religious traditionalists are claiming to be conservatives. So much for individual rights.

 

Do you think that helps your argument, that these abortions are "needed"?

 

Isn't that a body she's sharing during pregnancy? (Pro-choicers often claim the fetus is "part of her body", but it works the other way around too)

What makes you think she has the right?

She created that situation, where she now has to choose between giving up "control" of her own body and abortion. You don't get to choose that way out when you made a choice that created that situation and that dilemma.

Like a bank robber trying to claim "self defense" when they shoot a security guard.

She better get an abortion really early when it is just a glob, otherwise she has no right to kill. You can't bring a life into the world and then just snuff it out.

 

I don't see any benefit.

 

You're planning on harassing women and doctors?

So, you're going to make white women with white fathers give birth, but let women carry brown or Asian babies get abortions?

They aren't people.

 

Why would that be worse than the status quo?

Complaints of "racism" should not stop us from trying to save unborn babies, especially if they are wanted.

I'd save black babies too, but then you would complain nobody wants them.

 

It means marriage doesn't solve the problem.

 

It helps a lot.

 

Ah, it doesn't matter if they're white babies.

 

Help, yes, but there are married women who want abortions.

 

Why didn't she get her tubes tied?

 

She's not sharing her body.

She's a person.

Oklahoma says she has to give birth to her rapist's baby. No choice there.

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.