Oklahoma -- Anti-Abortion law.

[Endus]

4> Because it has never been considered a constitutional right.

This is false. Roe v. Wade explicitly states that the decision to abort is a Constitutionally-protected right.

This is exactly what I meant. You've stated something that is as categorically false as if you had claimed that 2+2=dishwasher.

matter of fact in all of this arguing there is NO WHERE ANYWHERE in the constitution that states you have a right to an abortion.

9th Amendment covers rights that aren't explicitly detailed in the Constitution, so while this isn't categorically wrong, it demonstrates a complete failure to grasp what the Constitution says.

You have even failed to provide explicit evidence to that, except a court case.

A SCOTUS court decision, which is definitive.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

"We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision . . ."

[Daelak]

Setting aside the minor issue that your wording is circular (a human is a human that can do X), what is a human?

Sorry, meant being. Human is the current iteration of Hominina clade, with a large prefrontal cortex, erect posture, bipedal movement, and manual dexterity.

[Qlix]

Im with you. Mary Fallin is a jackass.

We're all screwed if she manages to pull off being named VP running mate.

[Garnier Fructis]

Sorry, meant being. Human is the current iteration of Hominina clade, with a large prefrontal cortex, erect posture, bipedal movement, and manual dexterity.

I guess I'll get to my point then. Ultimately, 'human' is based off of taxonomic definitions, which are by inherently arbitrary and un-physical. In like manner, the arbitrary convention that a being is a human when it meets X conditions is also un-physical. Those are matters of definition, not of any inherent natural truth.

And that's why I have a problem with the argument that 'it's a scientific fact.' No; it's a scientific definition, which is, at its core, arbitrary.

[unbound]

Over 900 magnitude 3+ earthquakes last year in a state that shouldn't have more than 4 or 5, facing a massive budget shortfall, one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the US, high school graduation rates so embarrassing that nearly 1/2 of the school districts refuse to provide data anymore, a female prison with the highest rape rate in the US, 5th highest obesity rate in the US, but I'm so glad Oklahoma is focusing on their really big problems like abortion and who is going into their bathrooms...

[Daelak]

I guess I'll get to my point then. Ultimately, 'human' is based off of taxonomic definitions, which are by inherently arbitrary and un-physical. In like manner, the arbitrary convention that a being is a human when it meets X conditions is also un-physical. Those are matters of definition, not of any inherent natural truth.

And that's why I have a problem with the argument that 'it's a scientific fact.' No; it's a scientific definition, which is, at its core, arbitrary.

A fetus doesn't have a large prefrontal cortex, it cannot sit up straight nor can it walk with two legs. These terms are not arbitrary, they define them specifically for this reason. What other taxonomic definitions do you have that are un-physical and arbitrary?

[Triskell]

Unconstitutional? No where in the constitution does it say you should be able to legally kill another human if you didn't plan your pregnancy. Nice try though.

Whare in ANY of this is there ANY talk of killing "another human". Nice try though, but you might want to get some help on that one

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting. Because no where in the constitution does it state you have a right to abortion.

Just give up already, you are so demonstrating your entire lack of understanding of how the system works. But thanks for playing.....

[Xeones]

4> Because it has never been considered a constitutional right. People agreeing on someone being able to do something does not make it constitutional, matter of fact in all of this arguing there is NO WHERE ANYWHERE in the constitution that states you have a right to an abortion. You have even failed to provide explicit evidence to that, except a court case. Should George Zimmerman be able to kill unarmed black teens whenever because he as acquitted of his charges? Let's not argue something that isn't there.

If the supreme court does not rule on constitutionality than what do they do?

Do you understand how the US government works as set forth in the constitution?

[Garnier Fructis]

A fetus doesn't have a large prefrontal cortex, it cannot sit up straight nor can it walk with two legs. These terms are not arbitrary, they define them specifically for this reason. What other taxonomic definitions do you have that are un-physical and arbitrary?

The terms are not arbitrary. But the terms are not the definition. The definition is 'it's a human when it has all of these.' It's the classification that's un-physical, arbitrary.

[babalou1]

We're all screwed if she manages to pull off being named VP running mate.

God I hope not. She is the absolute worst choice in running mate.

[Vyxn]

Roe v. Wade was fundamentally settled over constitutional law, so you're fundamentally wrong about this.



Yes. It does. As Roe v. Wade details. If you bothered to read it.

and District of Columbia v. Heller is settled constitutional law confirming the individual has the right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
but we still have states trying to violate that right that you are in support of them doing

[Lenonis]

and District of Columbia v. Heller is settled constitutional law confirming the individual has the right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
but we still have states trying to violate that right that you are in support of them doing

Alrighty, let's all agree that passing blatantly unconstitutional laws is a poor use of government time and money.

I would maintain that probing around the edges of the law for where you can tweak is far different than just blatantly violating it. Restricting clinics, etc. is quite a different approach than making it flat out illegal.

It's akin to a state outlawing guns entirely and making it a 3 year felony to own one.

[Detritivores]

and District of Columbia v. Heller is settled constitutional law confirming the individual has the right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
but we still have states trying to violate that right that you are in support of them doing

Glossing over the fact that no one is advocating restricting lawful firearm ownership, is your suggestion that you'll ban guns if it means you can ban abortion? I'm confused.

[feellucky]

Blatantly unconstitutional. If it gets signed by the governor, I have little doubt a court will issue an injunction to stop it until it can get overturned.

This, the Oklahoma supreme court is much more liberal than the current houses and governor. I have no doubt it will be signed, then challenged and then overturned. As a med student from Oklahoma this pisses me off enough to make me not want to practice here when I graduate.

[Endus]

and District of Columbia v. Heller is settled constitutional law confirming the individual has the right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
but we still have states trying to violate that right that you are in support of them doing

I have no idea why you think any of that's particularly relevant. Particularly when responding to me, when I've been relatively pro-gun for, like, forever.

[FrothyMug]

It's so hard to carry on any kind of meaningful debate in a forum where responses are posted seemingly every 30 seconds. I go to work on homework for an hour and I come back to find 3-4 pages chock full of responses I'd love to retort upon. It's more like a chat room

Anyways, this may be the last response I give on the subject due to time constraints:

Because the only way to "protect unborn children" is through denying women the same bodily autonomy that everyone else takes for granted. Whether or not a fetus is a "person" should be fundamentally irrelevant to this question.

What is this "autonomy" you speak of? You mean that a woman has a choice to do what she wants to her body? Of course I support that right.

But I believe that right must be suspended when she becomes pregnant. She has the responsibility to nurture and grow that life into a baby. If she has previously existing vices, such as smoking, drinking, drugs, etc., the responsible thing to do is to give up those vices so that the baby is not harmed during gestation. If you don't want to suspend your right of autonomy, then don't get pregnant.

I fully support making available the tools and education to help women enjoy all of the wonders of life (including sex) without forcing the responsibility of childbirth upon them. Also, I am open to consideration on the cases of rape, incest, and medically-diagnosed danger to the life of the mother (which can become a slippery slope when combined with dishonesty of the individuals involved). To me, the entire gist of abortion rights lies squarely on being responsible with your actions. And INB4 "It's irresponsible to have a child when you cannot support them" and derivatives of that argument alike. You should have been more responsible than when you chose to have sex without making the necessary preparations. Oh, you had an accident? There's Plan B. Yeah, it costs money, but again, that's the consequence of your mistake.

TL;DR: Abortions allow people to avoid the responsibility of their decisions. Life deserves a chance to live. It's not about controlling women; it's about protecting babies.

[Lenonis]

it's about protecting babies.

Let's be honest here. It's about getting the babies born. Not about protecting them once they are born. Once born it seems all care evaporates. Then it's just a tirade about personal responsibility and bootstraps.

[Torgent]

It's so hard to carry on any kind of meaningful debate in a forum where responses are posted seemingly every 30 seconds. I go to work on homework for an hour and I come back to find 3-4 pages chock full of responses I'd love to retort upon. It's more like a chat room

Anyways, this may be the last response I give on the subject due to time constraints:



What is this "autonomy" you speak of? You mean that a woman has a choice to do what she wants to her body? Of course I support that right.

But I believe that right must be suspended when she becomes pregnant. She has the responsibility to nurture and grow that life into a baby. If she has previously existing vices, such as smoking, drinking, drugs, etc., the responsible thing to do is to give up those vices so that the baby is not harmed during gestation. If you don't want to suspend your right of autonomy, then don't get pregnant.


TL;DR: Abortions allow people to avoid the responsibility of their decisions. Life deserves a chance to live. It's not about controlling women; it's about protecting babies.

Spoken like someone who has never had sex or actually paid attention to the world. Sometimes mistakes happen. The condom breaks as the man ejaculates, they get the morning after pill, but oops. It's only 89% effective, so 1/10 people who use it still get pregnant. Woman is at a party and is drunk, makes a bad decision. Well let's punish her and the future child by making her keep it! Punish women for having sex! YEAH!

[Powerogue]

How is it unconstitutional, exactly? I get that people disagree with it, for good reason (it doesn't even include rape exceptions! Even if I was siding with them I'd have tacked that in there) but not how it's unconstitutional.

edit:

Roe v. Wade.

There it is. Answered on a previous page.

[Reeve]

How is it unconstitutional, exactly? I get that people disagree with it, for good reason (it doesn't even include rape exceptions! Even if I was siding with them I'd have tacked that in there) but not how it's unconstitutional.

Roe v. Wade determined that women have a right to an abortion if they so choose, according to the constitution. This law makes giving abortions a felony, which makes it an unconstitutional law under Roe v. Wade.

- - - Updated - - -

Spoken like someone who has never had sex or actually paid attention to the world. Sometimes mistakes happen. The condom breaks as the man ejaculates, they get the morning after pill, but oops. It's only 89% effective, so 1/10 people who use it still get pregnant. Woman is at a party and is drunk, makes a bad decision. Well let's punish her and the future child by making her keep it! Punish women for having sex! YEAH!

I used to wonder at all these people who have had their condoms break, but yeah it's happened to me once now. Before anything could cause a problem, and my girlfriend was on birth control, but still, it happens.